Saturday, October 17, 2009

Ever Wonder......Why the sun lightens our hair, but darkens our skin?

Friday, October 16, 2009

This bill would require Internet posting of all non-emergency bills for 72 hours before the final vote. Speaker Pelosi is blocking it from the House floor. The way to get around her block is what's called a "Discharge Petition". It discharges the bill or petition to the floor for an immediate vote.

The names of members who have already signed the Discharge Petition are designated by green checkmarks and crossed-out names. If your Representative has signed, please call to express your appreciation. It means more than you might think.

Members whose names are in red are sponsors of the underlying House Resolution 554. Co-sponsors of H. Res 554 who have not yet signed the Discharge Petition are good candidates to do so if given enough encouragement. After you have determined what you need to do with respect to your own Representative, please start calling those in red who have not yet signed. Enter their state in the window above, then call or email them from the list of Members in that state, and so on.


Jeff Miller, 01
Allen Boyd, 02
Corrine Brown, 03
Ander Crenshaw, 04
Ginny Brown-Waite, 05
Cliff Stearns, 06
John Mica, 07
Alan Grayson, 08
Gus Bilirakis, 09
Bill Young, 10
Kathy Castor, 11
Adam Putnam, 12
Vern Buchanan, 13
Connie Mack, 14
Bill Posey, 15
Tom Rooney, 16
Kendrick Meek, 17
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 18
Robert Wexler, 19
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 20
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, 21
Ron Klein, 22
Alcee Hastings, 23
Suzanne Kosmas, 24
Mario Diaz-Balart, 25

If you live in another state, find your representative here.

Not everyone will take the time to read any bill or resolution posted on the Internet. I'll be honest: I wouldn't read probably most of them. My take on the subject is that the bill or resolution should be available for those who chose to read them.

This is supposed to be the most transparent Administration in history. So speaketh Speaker Pelosi herself. If she means what she says, why is she blocking this resolution? Why aren't all bills and resolutions, House and Senate both, posted where the "common" person, like you and me, can read it? Is it because they think we couldn't possibly understand it? Or are they trying to hide something? Like, the cost of the bill, or what is tacked on to it int he form of amendments that have nothing to do with the bill itself? Maybe it's because someone is afraid they don't have enough votes to vote down the resolution?

Maybe if this resolution is voted on and passed, We, The People, will feel like we have some power and someone is afraid that we just may be able to sway our representatives to voting how we want them to vote, not how the Administration wants those same representatives to vote.

I urge you to put your representatives feet to the fire and tell them how you want them to vote on this resolution, and all resolutions and bills. They are our employees, not our caretakers.

Speaker Pelosi, if you mean what you say about transparency in government, then release this resolution to the floor for a vote. Otherwise all you are doing is talking. I hear the words, do I hear what you really mean or what you want The People (your employers aka the voters. Remember them?) to hear?
FairTax on Twitter

It's FairTax Friday - look at your paystub!

There's talk of a fat tax, Botox tax, carbon tax, etc... Taxing to manipulate Americans behavior is immoral.

Thursday, October 15, 2009


"It's not true that raising taxes harms the economy."

- California Lt. Governor John Garamendi

"The Café des Artistes has been doing a steady restaurant business in New York City since 1917, but is now forced to close its doors. One of the main reasons for this happens to be the fact that the Café is unfortunate enough to be a union restaurant and the exorbitant costs of supporting a union workforce has contributed to killing the business."

- Warner Todd Huston, The Union Label Blog, 9/1/09


"The decision to close the Café (des Artistes) is exceedingly painful to make, but inevitable. We are one of the very, very few independent restaurants in New York City that operates with a union.. In that respect, we are a dinosaur because the huge added expense of having a union restaurant can be crippling, especially when the economy takes a nosedive.

"Since 99% of the independent restaurants in New York City do not have a union, we are not playing on a level playing field with the rest of our competition. One example: We pay approximately $250,000 more each year for health insurance and pension coverage for our employees than we would if we were paying for non-union coverage."

- Jennifer Lang, former owner of the now defunct Café des Artistes restaurant in New York which was killed by unionization

by Ann Coulter

(18) America's lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.

President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.

These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We're 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a "life expectancy" problem than a "Democratic math competency" problem.

But also, as described in last week's column, the citizenry's health is not the same thing as the citizenry's health care system.

Besides America's high rate of infant mortality -- based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care -- Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.

Liberals shouldn't have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: "We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets." I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.

Somewhat surprisingly to those of us who have long admired France for its humanitarian smoking laws, until the mid-1980s, Americans had had the highest rate of smoking in the developed world. This makes patriotic Americans like me wonder if there's a way to get Michael Moore to start smoking. (You know, just to keep his weight down or whatever.)

To be fair, the French are still being exposed to large amounts of smoke due to all the cars being set on fire by Muslims.

In 2003, America led the world in smoking-related deaths among women -- followed by Hungary. Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization's comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women's life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place.

Americans are also more likely to die in military combat than the whimpering, pant-wetting cowards our military has spent the past 70 years defending -- I mean, than "our loyal European allies." This is a health risk Europeans have managed to protect themselves against by living in a world that contains the United States military.

These are risk factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. To evaluate the quality of our health care, you have to compare apples to apples by looking at outcomes for specific medical conditions.

Although the United States has a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes compared to Europe -- because of lifestyle choices and genetics -- it also has better survival rates across the board for all these medical problems.

The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease.

A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close -- and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.

In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.

Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

There are no national registries for heart disease, as there are for cancer, making survival-rate comparisons more difficult. But treatments can be measured and, again, Americans are far more likely to be on medication for heart disease and high cholesterol -- medications that extend the lives of millions, developed by those evil, profit-grubbing American drug companies.

To get to the comparison they like (America is not as good as Sweden!), liberals have to slip in the orange of "life expectancy," and hope no one will mention monster truck races, Krispy Kremes and Virginia Slims. As the old saying goes: Life doesn't last longer in socialist countries; it just feels like it.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Posted 08/19/2009 ET
Updated 08/19/2009 ET

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

(2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office -- immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force -- which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don't know -- including the president, apparently -- with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

"GM has some fine vehicles, but it is working uphill against public resentment. Here are the people who don't like it: the stockholders who got wiped out, the bondholders who got moved to the back of the creditor line, the dealers who were dumped, the workers who lost their jobs, the retirees who are at risk of losing some of their health benefits, the owners of orphaned brands (Pontiac, Saturn and Oldsmobile) and the several million taxpayers who think government support is just wrong."

- Forbes Magazine auto writer Jerry Flint (Hat Tip to Political Diary)


OK, so the problem was America's Big Three domestic automakers were going under, weighted down by Big Labor unionization. Something had to be done!

So Barack Obama bailed out Chrysler (again) and exercised a government take-over of General Motors before handing off managerial control to organized labor. Ford, to its credit, declined the government's "help."

Then Congress took money the country doesn't have and gave $4,500 checks to people who were already planning to buy new cars later this year so that they'd trade in their "clunkers" and buy them in August instead.

Naturally, the media is declaring this program a HUGE success. People LOVE the cash-for-clunkers program, don't ya know!

Wow, people love getting "free" money they didn't earn? Who'd a thunk it?

Of course, those folks didn't read the fine print. Seems they're now going to have to declare their $4,500 of "free" money as income and pay taxes on it. Oops.

In any event, word out of Detroit now is that the cash-for-clunkers program didn't really help the folks it was supposed to help. Instead of bolstering sales for failing Chrysler and GM, the government checks were used to buy Fords, Toyotas, Hyundais and Hondas. Go figure.

Indeed, the Associated Press reports that Chrysler and GM "endured yet another month of falling sales," which means, in light of the "free" money, these two dinosaur car makers couldn't even give their products away.

If Barack Obama and Harry Reid can do this for America's auto industry, just imagine what they're gonna do for our health care system.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Steve Wynn Gets It

WYNN: Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody. The only thing that creates an increased standard of living is giving someone a job, the demand for their labor -- whether it's you and I, Chris, or anybody else. The people that are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America.

find the rest of the story here
Hollywood Tough Guy Robert Davi Teams With Animal Rights Groups to Push for Tax Change

Will Max be a tax break? Can Fido help with FICA?

A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions -- tax cuts and pet ownership -- to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.

The measure is a legislative long shot. But it's been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman, and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times.

"We think this is as much a health care bill as any," said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs at the Humane Society. "It's a human health issue to ensure that pets are provided with better care because of the role they play in our families."

The measure even has a snappy acronym: the HAPPY Act, as in Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years.


An excellent idea. I know of many people who would take better care of their pets if it weren't for the expense. Yes, I know, if you take on the responsibility of ownership, it means taking care of the animal, vet expenses and all.

But when it costs as much to take your furry little friend for his yearly checkup and it's as expensive as taking yourself or your kid, a lot of people are going to think twice about it. "It's only an animal, after all."

Especially in this economy, people are cutting back. If it means the kid goes to the doctor or the dog goes, most people will opt for the kid. Everyone is cutting back on this or that and sometimes the pets have to be the last in line for necessities such as shots. I don't like the idea, but it's right out there.

I have serious doubts this bill will make it through Congress, much less be actually signed into law, but I do believe it would make a difference. I know I would be better about making sure my own dogs got their vet visits as needed if I knew I could claim them on my taxes.

Now, how about just getting rid of income taxes altogether and going to a national sales tax instead. I'd have more money in my wallet and could be sure that my boys got the care they need when they need it. I don't have to explain my embrace of the FairTax. If you've seen this blog, you know why I want it. If this is your first time, stick around, read past posts or ask questions.

You wouldn't believe the difference it could make in your life. And in your pets lives.

Donald and Daisy

Donald Duck and Daisy Duck were spending the night together in a hotel room and Donald wanted to have sex with Daisy.

The first thing Daisy asked was, “Do you have a condom?”

Donald frowned and said, “No.”

Daisy told Donald that if he didn't get a condom, they could not have sex.

“Maybe they sell them at the front desk,” she suggested. So Donald went down to the lobby and asked the hotel clerk if they had condoms.

“Yes, we do,” the clerk said and pulled a box out from under the counter and gave it to Donald.

The clerk asked, “Would you like me to put them
on your bill?”

“No!” Donald quacked, “I'll thuffocate.”

Mensa Invitaitonal

Here is the Washington Post's Mensa Invitational which once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. The winners are:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.

3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer,unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.

11. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

12. Karmageddon: It's when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, and then the Earth explodes and it's a serious bummer.

13. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

14. Glibido: All talk and no action.

15. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

16. Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

17. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

18. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.


The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:

1. coffee, n. the person upon whom one coughs.

2. flabbergasted, adj. appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.

3. abdicate, v. to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

4. esplanade, v. to attempt an explanation while drunk.

5. willy-nilly, adj. impotent.

6. negligent, adj. absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.

7. lymph, v. to walk with a lisp.

8. gargoyle, n. olive-flavored mouthwash.

9. flatulence, n. emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.

10. balderdash, n. a rapidly receding hairline.

11. testicle, n. a humorous question on an exam.

12. rectitude, n. the formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.

13. pokemon, n. a Rastafarian proctologist.

14. oyster, n. a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.

15. Frisbeetarianism, n. the belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

16. Circumvent, n. an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men
Posted By Bobby Eberle On October 6, 2009 at 7:08 am

Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats want to control your health care. Despite sinking polls, their efforts continue with some Republicans who desperately want to work with them for a "compromise."

Obama's latest effort was to have yet another health care event where he could get in front of the camera and pitch his snake oil. Using a background of "doctors," Obama wanted to drive the message home to the American people that he and the doctors can be trusted with your health care. What a joke. All one needs to do is look at the way Medicare currently does business to see that the last thing America needs is more government control over health care.

As noted in an AP story on GOPUSA, "Obama on Monday filled the Rose Garden with doctors supportive of his health care overhaul, saying 'nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do.'"

Message to Obama: You don't have credibility on anything any more.

Obama's White House event gave him another chance to frame the debate on his terms as his top domestic priority enters its most critical phase with legislation moving toward floor debates in the Senate and the House.

The Senate Finance Committee is expected to clear its long-debated, intensely scrutinized bill this week. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said a vote originally expected by Tuesday has been pushed back, because the Congressional Budget Office is still crunching cost and coverage numbers.

The latest version of the Finance bill will cover fewer people, after senators last week softened penalties for not carrying health insurance. Stabenow said she expects it will cover 92 percent or 93 percent of Americans, down from about 95 percent in earlier versions. The penalties were reduced because there's not enough money in the $900-billion, 10-year bill to provide subsidies for all middle-class households.

Ok, here's what I don't get... In the news story, former HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson said the bill in the Finance Committee "is another important step toward achieving the goal of health care reform this year." The story also notes, "Bill Frist, a heart surgeon and former Senate Republican leader, told Time magazine he would vote for the Finance bill if he were still in Congress. Both Frist and Thompson said the bill could be improved by amendments, however."

The bill emerging from the committee STILL forces people to buy health insurance, or they will face a penalty (tax). This is unconstitutional and un-American! In addition, the so-called health care reform package still does not include medical malpractice reform. In order to have serious reform and control costs, this aspect MUST be addressed, and it's not. Yet some prominent Republicans are stepping forward to voice support? Come on!

Take a look at the latest story on Medicare running on The report notes that Medicare is the "single largest buyer of medical products" in the United States. As such, one might think that they'd get some kind of "volume discount." Wrong!

"Medicare doesn't even get the best price. According to their own auditors, Medicare knowingly overpays for almost everything it buys."

Here are some examples from the story:

-- $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.
-- $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.
-- $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.
-- $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.
-- $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web.

Of course, efforts to change the system have been blocked in Congress. No one has any respect for the tax payer, and apparently, no one in Congress has any business experience either.

And Obama and the Democrats want us to give more power to Washington? They want our blessing so that we are FORCED to buy health insurance and taxed heavily to pay for it? I don't think so.

Obama can keep his theatrics to himself. How many doctors would have actually gone to a White House event in their lab coats? None. Those who did forget to bring a lab coat (as instructed by the White House) were given one at the door.

One more speech, and one more opportunity for the American people to wake up. This plan should go down in flames, and the last thing we need are some Republicans saying they'd vote for it.

Monday, October 12, 2009

By Henry Lamb
October 12, 2009

Rep. John Shadegg has been trying to get a bill enacted for 15 years that would simply require legislators to cite the constitutional authority for any legislation that is proposed. His bill is called the Enumerated Powers Act (HR450). It now has 52 co-sponsors, but there is very little chance that it will ever get to the floor for a vote.

Why? Because the Democrats in Congress will not allow it.

This bill would not be necessary if the Democrats would simply follow their own rules. House Rule XIII (3)(d)(1) requires:

"Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution."

That's right. The rules of procedure in the House of Representatives already require that every bill or resolution cite the constitutional authority for the proposed legislation. This rule is routinely ignored.

Why? Because Democrats control the Rules Committee and the entire House of Representatives, and they routinely "waive" or "suspend" this rule.

Some people remember when Nancy Pelosi stood on her pedestal and proclaimed: "This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history" (November 16, 2006). Ignoring a House rule is a minor offense, compared to the corruption that Ms. Pelosi readily accepts when it affects her Democratic colleagues.

How quickly did she and her colleagues invoke House rules to condemn Rep. Joe Wilson when he blurted out "you lie" during President Obama's sales pitch to Congress? But when Democrat Alan Grayson uses visual aids to claim that the Republican health care plan calls on sick people to "Die Quickly," there's nothing at all offensive to Pelosi and her colleagues about the gross lie Grayson speaks.

But even this duplicity is minor compared to the corruption that Nancy continues to reward by her failure to take action.

Charles Rangel has failed to report his income from rental property in the Dominican Republic; has used rent-controlled housing facilities for campaign activities to avoid more than $7,000 in rental payments, and much, much more.

John Murtha provides a treasure trove of investigations into all sorts of abuse of power. Murtha's earmark list contains big rewards for the same companies that appear on his contributions list.

Maxine Waters completely ignores the conflict of interest rules by using her influence to set up meetings between the Treasury Department and her friends at OneUnited Bank -- which, incidentally, wound up with $12.1 million in bailout funds.

Corruption is not limited to Democrats, by any means; they just seem to be better at getting away with it.

But then, they have a good example. Obama also promised to clean up the corruption in the administration. Then, he proceeded to appoint Tom Daschle and other people who had failed to pay their taxes, or, like New Mexico's Governor, Bill Richardson, were caught up in some kind of investigation. Obama issued an extremely rigid Executive Order outlining a high bar of ethics his appointees would have to meet. Then, he proceeded to ignore his high bar and waive the requirements for several appointees.

It is pure corruption to deliberately give the appearance of high ethical standards, and then completely refuse to apply those standards.

What's needed is a tidal wave to wash over Washington to clean out every politician -- regardless of party affiliation -- who seeks personal power over constitutional compliance or personal profit over public accountability.

Tidal waves often follow earthquakes. And earthquakes often follow ground tremors. Seismic tremors are being recorded in cities across the nation. In nearly every city where a Democrat had the courage to hold a town meeting, the earth rumbled.

All across the land, individuals and organizations are preparing for a tidal wave. They are identifying those Congressmen who arrogantly refuse to answer their questions. They are making notes of the votes cast by Congressmen who want government to take over health care, energy, and the rest of the market place. They are putting targets on the backs of those elected officials who vote to increase taxes and blindly spend uncountable billions.

While Democrats pretended to look the other way on September 12, more than a million people politely paraded through Washington. These are the people who will take their families and their friends and neighbors to the polls next November. These are the people who are the tidal wave that can clean up the corruption in DC. These are the people who vote.
Police Blotter

Previously, I published report card comments made by teachers. We can't leave the police out of the fun!

These are actual comments made by 16 Police Officers. The comments were taken off actual police car videos around the country:

1. "You know, stop lights don't come any redder than the one you just went through."

2. "Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch after you wear them a while."

3. "If you take your hands off the car, I'll make your birth certificate a worthless document."

4. "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."

5. "Can you run faster than 1200 feet per second? Because that's the speed of the bullet that'll be chasing you."

6. "You don't know how fast you were going? I guess that means I can write anything I want to on the ticket, huh?"

7. "Yes, sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it will help. Oh, did I mention that I'm the shift supervisor?"

8. "Warning! You want a warning? O.K, I'm warning you not to do that again or I'll give you another ticket."

9. "The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?"

10. "Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to ride on rides, eat cotton candy and corn dogs and step in monkey poop."

11. "Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven."

12. "In God we trust; all others we run through NCIC."

13. "Just how big were those 'two beers' you say you had?"

14. "No sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to, but now we're allowed to write as many tickets as we can."

15. "I'm glad to hear that the Chief (of Police) is a personal friend of yours. So you know someone who can post your bail."


16. "You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't. Sign here."