We Stand At The Brink

This says everything I would, only better. Nuff said!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268339/citizenship-and-memory-amy-kass

Where's The Hate Really Coming From?

Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268419/stopping-hate-matthew-shaffer

This man is living his Christian beliefs ... standing for Christian principle and practicing the kind of love required(!) of us. One can be opposed to things others do but love them anyway. That's what we're supposed to do but unbelievers have great difficulty understanding that.

Those haters don't understand how one can strongly disagree with someone yet love them anyway. They've learned to hate when they disagree with someone and that's their point of reference ... strongly disagree => hate. So they think that when others strongly disagree they must be hating too. Too often we practice Christian love poorly but this guy appears to be doing it right. He appears undeserving of others' hate.

One point is, there are things humans do that God has said are wrong, sinful. The second point God makes with us is that He is the 'judge' of that, not us. While He judges, we are to love people anyway. Being human we do that imperfectly but it's what we're supposed to keep trying to do well. The guy discussed in the above link seems to be doing it pretty well.

We all do things we shouldn't, right? Things that others think are wrong? Wouldn't you like to be loved in spite of what you do/say? In spite of others' opinions about what you do? What this guy is doing has everything to do with not only love and forgiveness but also letting God be the judge.

Does this guy deserve to be on the receiving end of hate from the people who erroneously and unfairly call him the hater? All evidence suggests that he lives a life modelled pretty well on Christian moral principles; based on loving one's neighbors in spite of(!) their shortcomings. We should all do as well. Those who hate him could learn from him. He's not the one doing the hating for what others do/say.

While his donations go directly to mostly Christian organizations, his resulting philanthropy undoubtedly touches those who are lost (that's what such Christian organizations do ... reaching those whom they'd call 'lost'!) and live apart from God's will for us. Some of the very people who are hating him could be benefitting from his generosity. But this guy doesn't care so much about who he helps does he?

Who are the real haters and intollerant ones? Who in this picture hates simply because the other disagrees and who loves in spite of(!) others disagreeing?

Housing Problem Wasn't Fixed ... Told You So

For two years I've blogged that the economy wasn't going to be able to recover because the housing problem that started this mess wasn't fixed by Democrats' "bailouts" and "fixes". Check it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43222187/

I've said all along that those properties purchased with unaffordable mortgages were still out there AND that a second (and possibly worse) hit was coming when Democrats' economic bandaids wore off. They didn't cure the underlying disease. Those unaffordable mortgages were NEVER magically eliminated; they're just not as visible because banks and other lenders partitioned them off by 'clever' accounting/investing in a way that those mortgages no longer 'look' bad on their bottom line. What Democrats did may have helped people get by with unaffordable mortgages for a while but it didn't fix the underlying problem.

Don't you even wonder whether these people in DC have a clue about anything?

What Passes For News These Days: Casey Anthony & Rod Blogojovich

To Main-Stream Media: can we please get through a day without the latest update on Casey and Blogouevich? The fact that you think these trials are worthwhile news deserving daily(!) coverage in detail attests to the shallowness of your thinking. It's really hard to take you guys seriously any more.

Obama Policy Vis A Vis Israel Makes The Middle East Less Secure

Check this out: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268237/what-obama-did-israel-charles-krauthammer

Nothing to add to that. Pretty much says what needs to be said.

When Is Regulation Not Regulation? When It's License To Steal!!!

You may have heard a recent uproar over some health insurance carriers increasing premiums by double digits for the second year in a row. (Do you recall that ObamaCare was supposed to reign in our costs?) Our illustrative Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has figured out how to fix that. She just decided that whenever an insurance carrier wants to increase premiums 10% or more that they have to get her agency's approval. Sounds all 'controlling' doesn't it? Well perhaps ... until you look at the math.

That means insurance companies can increase their premiums by 9.9% every year and Ms. Sebelius won't care. A 9.9% increase may not sound like a big number but what's to stop an insurance company from doing that every year? Do you have a clue what that does to your premium costs? Here's how a $500/month premium will increase allowing 'only' a 9.9% increase every year:

• Year zero: $500/month
• Nine years later: $1,064
• 20 years later: $3,006
• 25 years later: $4,819
• 30 years later: $7,725

Question for those of you around 30 years of age: have you factored into your savings/career plan the need to pay $7,725 per month ($93,000/year) for insurance premiums when you're 60?

Setting a 10% 'limit' on premium increases is NOT regualtion AT ALL!!! It's LICENSE for insurance companies to increase rates by 10% even if they don't need to! Where is the incentive to control costs in this kind of regulation? Do these people in DC understand anything about math, economics or human nature? Talk about clueless!

BTW, here's the reference link for this blog: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268143/obama-s-insurance-price-controls-kevin-d-williamson

Regulatory Overload

Ever wonder about the amount of federal regulation in meaningful terms? We hear that there's too much regulation but how can it be quantified in a way that helps us understand it? Thanks to The Heritage Foundation we have one interesting measure.

The cost of complying with federal regulations seems like a reasonable way to measure how burdensome it might be becoming, wouldn't you agree? Let's assume we wanted to compensate businesses for the cost of complying with federal regulations by paying for it out of collected federal income taxes. What percentage of federal income taxes would it take? More than 100% of it!!! Can you get your head around that? I can't! ALL the income taxes collected by our federal government wouldn't be enough to compensate companies for the cost of regulatory compliance.

Think for a minute how much the cost of compliance adds to the cost of things we buy. To be specific it adds $1.75 TRILLION to the cost of doing business in America!!! Here's another perspective. It costs businesses nearly as much to comply with federal regualtions as it costs the federal government to run the country!!!

BTW, here's the relevant link: http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/268214/regulatory-hangover

Good Grief!!!

Republican Legislators:Serious About Budget Reductions. Democrats: Totally UNserious

Reference my previous blog and then check this out: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268152/ryan-40-obama-0-andrew-stiles

The budget Obama submitted to the senate got zero votes from either party! Even Ron Paul's budget proposal got more votes! Good Grief!

Is there ANY doubt remaining whatsoever that legislative Democrats do NOT care whether our economy goes in the toilet? What ARE they thinking?

Republicans: The Only Grownups In The Room On Capitol Hill

House Republicans passed a budget bill. Yeah, it was passed only on party lines so one can criticize Republicans for being partisan in their approach to it. Don't you wonder why House Democrats didn't propose a budget? How DARE they just sit back and criticize the Republican proposal and not present one of their own! Don't they think this debt problem is serious enough to deserve getting their collective heads in the game? They didn't even submit a budget when they were in control of the House last year and could have passed anything THEY wanted. Americans deserve better. How UNserious can one get? We need Democrats to get in the ring and do the hard work of reducing the budget deficit.

Then there's the senate. Democrats have been in control there for 5 years. When was the last time Democrats.submitted a budget? Over two years ago! I'll ask the same question of them. Isn't this debt problem that they were at least as complicit in creating serious enough for them to at least TRY doing something about? How many budgets have been submitted by Republicans in the senate? At least three which Reid will finally bring to the floor for a vote soon. Senate GOP 3, Senate Dems 0 ... on budgets submitted.

Which party is trying to be serious about reducing the budget deficit? Only ONE party is trying to do something about it. And the other party is just sitting back and criticizing the work of the other. How is that acceptable to ANY American, Republican OR Democrat? Are Dems simply willing to let our country's economy go down the toilet just so they have something to run on for the next election? (ie, "Republicans want to kill grandma.")

Criticize Republican proposals for their content if you want but Dems can be part of the solution or part of the problem. It couldn't be clearer which they've chosen.

Tough Love Or Bullying Disrespect?

MSNBC called President Obama's demand that Israel return to the 1967 borders (as a pre-condition to peace talks!!!) "Tough Love". Hmmmm. I wonder, where is the 'love' in what he said? I see nothing born of love in it. Do you? Seems to me it was disrespectful and bullying. But should we expect otherwise from MSNBC? After all, the liberal media is pretty committed to spin what this president does/says in a way that makes what he did sound smart and rational regardless whether it actually was.

That He Didn't Understand His Demand Would Make The Mid-East LESS Stable Is Downright Scary!

A P.S. to my previous blog: President Obama has probably just made the middle-east LESS stable by his demand of Israel. What do you think Israel's neighbors will make of our willingness to come to Israel's defense should they attack Israel ... again? Are increasing hostilities more or less likely now? The unfortunate answer is obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense. What worries me most is what we will (or won't) do if Israel is attacked again. Not knowing is probably worse than a certainty we'd help them. Not knowing invites trouble because where uncertainty exists, evil tries to take advantage.

I suspect that Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, knew how Israel would react to Obama's demand before he uttered it as did George Mitchell, Obama's middle-east peace envoy, before he resigned a week prior. Obama's gambit [publicly(!) making the 1967 borders a pre-condition(!) to peace negotiations] was a guaranteed losing move and, therefore, a boneheaded move. The obvious questions is, what was he thinking? For a claimed smart guy that was not so smart.

Boneheaded Diplomacy

Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43119090/ns/politics/

Even the Obama-idolizing media can't avoid describing the obvious: President Obama blew it with Israel by way of his demand (BEFORE hoped-for peace talks, therefore poisoning them in advance!!!) for a return to the 1967 borders. Making it a topic for discussion AT peace talks is one thing. Making it a pre-condition, in bullying fashion as he did, is another altogether.

Anyone who has a clue about international relations understands why Israel has a problem with that which means that making it a pre-condition to peace talks is a huge, HUGE diplomatic blunder. Of course the media won't word it that way but that's what it is.

That President Obama has so little understanding of Israel's difficulty with the 1967 borders that he had the audacity to think they'd take his public(!) demand well says something very disturbing to me about his skills on the international level. It affirms something (not good for a president) about his ego and bullying nature too.

Ooooooo! Someone's Not Happy!

(Picture from Reuters)

This past week, just prior to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit here, President Obama went public with a demand(!) that Israel must accept going back to the 1967 borders as a pre-condition to peace talks. That's such a bad, BAD move diplomatically!!! You don't poison peace talks by publicly(!) laying down demands before discussions with Netanyahu even begin. It's sooooo inconsistent with standard international peace diplomacy practices. Diplomats never, ever want to do things like that publicly before discussions begin. You don't poison peace talks where concessions may be needed in advance of the discussions. You also shouldn't disrespect a country's leader that way. Obama's public demands were bad in so many ways.

So, then, Obama and Netanyahu held a press conference after their meeting today and Netanyahu was in the process of telling Obama that Israel WILL NOT accept going back to the 1967 borders, period. That's when the picture above was taken. I don't think Obama is too happy about a major international leader telling him no, especially in a public way. Does Obama look happy to you? I don't think so! Well, I have to say you asked for it Mr. President. You should have saved your demands for PRIVATE discussions instead of disrespecting his right to decide what's best for his country and have the opportunity to negotiate fairly in private.

President Obama acts like a bully many times and this was the act of a bully. Going on national TV to demand that of Netanyahu was the equivalent of attacking him when his hands are tied and he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself. He's done that here at home in various situations too. I wish he wouldn't. It's inappropriate and unbecoming of a US President.

Dude! Waive Me!

File this under: YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK!

"Why is one-fifth of all Obamacare waiver recipients in Nancy Peolosi's district?"

With that opening line of the following link as an attention-grabber, read the rest of it here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267513/waive-me-michelle-malkin

Check out the paragraph in the above link about REI's exemption from Obamacare. Listen, isn't it about time to admit that the GOP may have been onto something when they said this approach to health care 'reform' wouldn't work? How much more proof do you need than nearly 1,400 exemptions for the very people who wanted this reform in the first place? Good Grief Folks! I feel like I'm in some kind of alternate Bizzaro-style universe.

When is it going to register with those who supported the Dems' health care reform that some 1,400 exemptions, mostly to union workers, are a collective testament to the reform's failure to produce the claimed results?

While I'm at it, I'm going to remind you of one of the biggest disconnects in legislative history. Prior to the passage of Obama's health care reform, Americans were totally up in arms about the rising costs of health care. The 'reform' The People wanted was lower health care costs. The reform they got was anything BUT control of the costs. In fact, it's proving so costly that nearly 1,400 exemptions have been given, mostly to unions who had everything to do with getting it passed in the first place. I'd laugh at the irony if it weren't so frustrating and irritating.

50 Years To Eliminate Our Debt! Do You Really 'Get' What That Means?

According to the GOP's leading politician (Boehner), it will take at least 20 years to get to a balanced budget and 30 years more to erase the national debt. And that's only possible if we implement something as drastic as Paul Ryan's budget plan. And then keep doing it year after year after year for 50 years!!!

Did you really have any idea the problem was this bad? So bad that, even using what many call drastic actions, it'll take two generations to get us back to even? Do you really 'get' what it'll mean to operate in a pretty austere manner for ... gads(!) ... 50 years? Doesn't that give you a bit of a clue just how badly these (GOP and Dem) yahoos screwed up our economy? And they did it in only ten years!!! Gads!!!

Econ 101 Learned The Hard Way (Ie, By Trial And Error Rather Than The Educational Route)

So, the president is finally figuring out that rising energy prices, especially the price of oil, does unacceptable harm to the economy, especially when a recession is already under way. After a lifetime of saying we need to have high oil prices so that green energy is more competitive, he's FINALLY figuring out that the economy doesn't work that way simply because he wants it to.

When you stop new oil production and oil exploration, the price of oil goes up. That part he already knew. Remember when he was campaigning and glibly said, "the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket" under his energy policy? His theory at the time was when the price of oil/gas got high enough, people and the economy in general would simply switch to other greener forms of energy. What he didn't understand, that one learns in Econ 101, is that people don't switch to something else that's also unacceptably high-priced. When the cost of energy gets this high they stop buying things. They don't just switch to something else the cost of which is also unacceptably high.

So, he stopped new oil production and exploration when he came into office. He was willing to drive up the price of oil and, therefore, of nearly all goods we purchase because nearly everything is dependent on energy. Implementing his 'go green energy policy' was more important to him than our economic health. And he was willing to do it in the middle of a recession!!! That's about as knuckleheaded as it gets in my book. Econ 101 says that driving up the cost of things in a recession makes the recession worse.

It appears he he has finally figured out what happens when you allow the price of gas to more than double in two years. Most of us knew what would happen when he said he wanted the price of energy to skyrocket. Econ 101 y'know. It might have been something to at least try ... IF the economy had been in good shape. But what a responsible person does when something negative happens to them economically, is realize that it is no longer a good time to do something that they know will further hurt them economically. I respect President Obama's desire to drive up the cost of energy to get green energy going but when he saw the economy crashing he should have delayed those plans. However, with the far (progressive) left, ideology trumps reason and logic. Fixing the economy first so it can handle a big increase in oil takes a back seat to ideology. Doing the right thing for our economy takes a back seat to ideology, period. Common sense, assuming there ever was any, goes out the window.

He's finally learning Econ 101 ... the hard way ... over our dying economy. It's a hard lesson for him to learn by experience versus fundamental laws of economics taught in most universities. It's an even harder lesson for the average American who has to suffer at the hands of such staggering inexperience.

Before you get all congratulatory with the president over lifting his ban on new oil exploration and drilling, realize that our economy would have had a much better chance of recovering before now if he had put his green energy drive on hold until we got through this recession. He made it worse. Now the economy is so sluggish that even a devout progressive can figure out it's time to give Americans a break so they'll start spending again. The progressive energy policy has come at a high price. Worse, we haven't seen the worst of it yet.

One BIG problem is that it takes some time for this energy policy change to have the desired effect on the economy because it takes time to get oil production started up again. If he had done this upon taking office we'd be seeing the benefit by now. As it is, we're paying double for gas what we paid when he took office. As a result, Americans don't go anywhere and they limit spending because they, unlike the government, can't just print money when they need more.

To make matters far worse, the president's quantitative easing and other economic policies have kicked inflation into gear. If you think we're not having fun now, just wait til you see what happens to our economy next. Soaring energy prices AND inflation. Not a good formula for a health economy.

Pakistan's Intelligence Service At Fault For Not Knowing Bin Laden Was Living There?

Now, I'm no 'fan' of Pakistan as either a friend of ours or supportive of us. Neither have I any illusions about their relative capability or desire to fight terrorism. Having said that, I think it may be unfair to judge so quickly and so insistently that Pakistan's intelligence service knew Bin Laden was living where we found him.

Time seems to have erased our national memory of how we blew the opportunity and need to find, keep an eye on and/or root out terrorists among us prior to 9/11. We've heard many stories about how our own intelligence services missed some pretty obvious things about the terrorists who killed those 3,000 Americans. In fact, we knew Bin Laden wanted to do something like what he did and we knew the approximate timing. It was an imminent threat right here in our own country and we still couldn't see and/or understand what was going on under OUR very noses.

I understand that the comparison between Bin Laden and the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks makes for significant differences because without Bin Laden those attacks probably wouldn't have happened. Nevertheless, one would have to consider people actually here who are preparing to carry out actual attacks are at least as serious a threat as some dude holed up in Afghaistan in terms of immediate danger and imminent threat to our country.

Those terrorists came here and started their planning while Clinton was still in office so two presidents' administrations carry blame for not finding those guys. Even considering the sorry shape our intelligence services were in under Clinton, they still should have been more competent then than the Pakistani intelligence services today.

Yes, it's possible that the Pakistani intelligence services knew where Bin Laden was because of the likelihood of corruption in that country as well as the liklihood that there are many people in their intelligence services who consider us a much bigger threat to Pakistan than is al Qaeda. Nevertheless, we shouldn't be so quick to judge their incompetence when there's ample evidence to suggest that even a country like ours can miss the boat on such things.

Head Of The Snake Has Been Cut Off? Sorry Mr. President But That's A Terrible Analogy!

It (ref the title above) is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. I'd expect better from President Obama. That analogy is supposed to mean the snake cannot hurt you any more because it can no longer bite (harm you) ... in any way. In his reference it's clear that the president was characterizing al Qaeda as the entire snake with Bin Laden as the head. But do you think this snake has lost its ability to bite us? Hardly. In fact, by killing Bin Laden, we may have just pissed off that snake enough that it'll bite us more aggressively and/or sooner than it would have otherwise. In fact, the person who replaces Bin Laden as al Qaeda's leader could very well be more dangerous. Dumb analogy sir.

Did You Notice: Unemployment Rate Is Back Up To 9.0

The economy isn't by any means in a solid recovery mode yet. A steadily declining unemployment rate would be a welcome thing.

BTW, did you notice how the media handled this news? "The unemployment rate rose to 9.0 but it's still 0.8 below November's rate." That's a fair way to put it of course but can you envision the headline if it were a 'Bush recovery' we're going through? Something like "The unemployment rate is back up to 9.0 ... are we in a recovery or not? When are we going to get to the 8.0 rate he promised we'd have by the end of 2009?"

I know. This recession IS harder to defeat than Senator Obama thought it would be. But doesn't this prove how naive he was at the time? (Remember how he and his supporters vehemently denied the claim that he was inexperienced and naive?) Doesn't this prove how little he understood the problem, much less what it would take to fix it? Time has proven him to have been pretty naive and unrealistically optomistic about nearly everything he promised he'd fix within a year. We elected him on the basis of how smart and capable he said he was, right? So, why is this all okay ... no big deal?

An Example Why Politics Makes Most People Nauseous

Consider the subject title and, with that in mind, read what's in this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266580/first-person-presidency-victor-davis-hanson

So many broken promises (I will ... ad nauseam) and so many less-than-honest claims (I did this and that ... ad nauseam) while totally ignoring the more important contributions of others. Remember that Senator Obama said he'd be different? He'd not do all the evil things that Bush did and he'd fix all our problems with a mere wave of his I-can-multi-task hand, one-hand-tied-behind-his-back fashion? After all, running the country is mere child's play for someone so exceptional. What a difference two years makes, eh?

Isn't it fair to say that humility is not one of President Obama's strong points? Have we ever seen a president so high on himself accomplish, by comparison, so little of what he said he'd do? I can't think of any. George Bush is an easy but dishonest pick so don't bore me by going there. If you think about it, he pretty much did everything he said he'd do. With mostly bipartisan support at the time by the way. Maybe you don't like the results but he didn't campaign on one thing and then do it not at all or 180 degrees differently. That includes his 'campaign' for waging war on terrorists and terrorism.

History may not like what Bush did but he did it with integrity and the support of most of the country at the time. Would you rather have a president who says what he's going to do and actually does it with support of most Americans or one who promises so much and does the polar opposite or at best very little? Which is more trustworthy  and honest? Can you say with a straight face that you think Obama has done a good, even mediocre job of accomplishing what he said he'd do? Okay, he outlawed water-boarding and passed health care reform. What else? His list of promises was loooooong. Surely you can come up with many accomplishments he promised to complete. How about cutting the annual budget deficit in half by the end of his first term? Instead it has only gotten bigger every year, now at $1.4+ Trillion. Hmmmm. Isn't it fair to say he was, at a minimum, extraordinarily naive on nearly all his promises and claims?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad he isn't doing most of what he said he'd do about Gitmo, rendition, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and others. The country IS safer and more capable national-security-wise for his not having done those things.

Bush rebuilt our military, intelligence and national security foundation that Clinton decimated in order to balance the federal budget. If you're wondering why Bush increased the debt, look no further than the cost of rebuilding what Clinton tore down. It's ironic that Bush gets (negative) credit for the cost of rebuilding what Clinton methodically decimated. Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget, never mind its cost was our nation's lack of preparedness for what became necessary on/after 9/11. If you don't like that our intelligence services didn't get the right information on Saddam, consider that the inadequacies of the intelligence service Bush had at his disposal on 9/11 was inherited from Clinton. A president cannot just re-materialize effective intelligence and national security services out of thin air overnight. It takes years of methodical work. Work that contributed mightily to the killing of enemy number one this week. While you're at it, remember that Clinton also made it a national priority to get Osama AND oust Saddam (by formal executive decree!) long before Bush was in office.

I do not recall a president who did so little of what he promised use the first person pronoun to such an extent. In fact, I do not recall a president using the first person pronoun so much regardless of accomplishments. Humility is most certainly not one of his strong points. Good Leaders 101 says to give the credit to others especially when you're standing on their shoulders to be able to complete what you did. I'd say they must not teach that at Harvard but Bush graduated there and he practiced that. I guess Obama slept in or skipped class during those lectures.

The Ignored Constitutional Protection

What would you say if I told you that everyone is told to hide something from prospective employers because factual statistics show that it WILL be used to discriminate against them? And the reason they need to hide it is because absolutely nothing is being done to stop it! Are you kidding me? Even though it SPECIFICALLY has CONSTITUTIONAL protection?

Only a complete idiot would believe it's only a coincidence that ALL job search companies and ALL resume writing experts/advisors tell you to never, never, NEVER include in your resume any information that'll give prospective employers clues about your age!

When writing a resume you'll be told to never mention: age, date of birth, date of high school graduation, date of college graduation, which years you were in the military. In other words, give NO information whatsoever that would even allow a prospective employer to make an educated guess of your age.

If actual age discrimination is not a problem, then why is everyone told to avoid any mention of his/her age? It is the ONLY constitutionally protected form of discrimination so weakly protected that you're told to avoid talking about it.

I thought that ALL those elected to the House, Senate and Presidency SWEAR AN OATH to protect and enforce the Constitution, including ALL the delineated forms of discrimination. Guess I was wrong.

This is beyond wrong. It's immoral! A large segment of our population is ROUTINELY discriminated against and no one seems to care. Surprisingly, the solution is NOT to fix it. The actual solution: work hard to hide the fact that you're older than some other job applicants. Sounds all 'fair' to me!

al-Qaeda Is Gonna React? Why Is That A Problem?

I don't want terrorist attacks any more than anyone else but you kow what? The terrorist cells exist already and they're absolutely committed to carrying out attacks. So, saying we're nervous about motivating them, by way of killing Bin Laden, to attack us in retribution doesn't really change what they were going to do anyway does it?. It only changes when they'll do their evil.

There's something to be said for 'smoking them out' now. To me, it's more benefit than problem. The sooner they surface so we can deal with them, the better. An irrational, mostly emotional reaction has other advantages for us. In doing that they're more likely to be careless and that works in our favor too.

Bottom line: if al-Qaeda wants to get all worked up over this and cause trouble, I say bring it!

Good Job All! The World Is A Better Place Without Bin Laden.

Props to President Obama for continuing to make finding Bin Laden a top priority and finally giving that terrorist his due. The people in our military and intelligence services who made it happen deserve our nation's thanks.

It's not a time for diminishing that accomlishment but to enjoy the satisfaction that comes with ridding the world of the man most singularly responsible for 9/11 and many other terrorist actions over the past dozen years.

No-Brainer? Indeed!

Timothy Geithner, our stalwart Treasury Secretary, just said it best. Increasing the debt ceiling for the 75th time in the past 50 years and the resulting necessity to print more money out of thin air are "No-Brainers"! Indeed! Could not have said it better myself. Only someone with No Brain could think they're either necessary or good ideas.

Fewer and fewer countries want to buy our debt any more. I wonder why? Do you suppose they don't like the fact that we've exceeded the limit on our credit card more times in the past ten years than we can count? Do you suppose they don't like the fact that we've been printing money out of thin air, thus devaluing all the Treasury Bonds we've given them in return for what we've borrowed from them? Maybe, just maybe they don't like the prospect of being paid back in dollars that are worth half as much? Maybe they really have no interest in loaning us any more money! What do we do then? When it's cheaper to use dollar bills than toilet paper?

Think about it. Say they lend us $100. We give them a $100 IOU and will end up paying them back in dollars that'll buy only $50 dollars worth of something. Who wouldn't want to do business with us on those terms?

It's bad news for you too, American saver. For every $100 you've plowed into savings, IRA's and 401K's you'll get back $100 that will only buy half as much stuff as the $100 you put into savings. Save $200,000 for retirement and when you get it back it'll only buy half as much stuff as you planned for retirement. Your standard of living will have decreased to half of what you planned.

That's what all this insane federal spending and debt is doing to your future. Should you care about what our government has been doing in that regard over the past ten years? Only if you care that we'll all have to drive trucks because we'll need them to haul all the money we'll need to buy a tank of gas. Only if you care about necessities becoming unaffordable. Only if you care about living in poverty when you retire. Only if you care about our so-called representatives stealing our future to satisfy their spending habits because they're more concerned about their reelection than our economy being flushed down the toilet. All this unaffordable welfare may seem all "PC" and "necessary" now but we will all pay a heavy price in just a few years. Then, we'll realize too late what fools we were to allow those yahoos in congress to get away with this nonsense.