He got the Peace Prize just for Being There (his vaunted presence, not the Peter Sellers film.)  Now the president's favored to claim the "best horror show" Academy Award for "ObamaScare", which scared the hell out of 300 million Americans in its first year.

When Hollywood's elite gather Sunday to hand out their coveted Oscars, the White House docudrama's surprise entry is expected to win its category by acclaim.  No production since Orson Wells' famed "War of the Worlds" has stirred such fright and outrage.

President Obama's shocker is a reality-themed re-make of an old classic, "The Music Man", in which a traveling con-man suckers an Iowa town by vowing to protect its kids.  In "ObamaScare", a presidential hustler arrives in Washington, D.C., and warns of America's downfall unless we buy his plan to protect us.

TMM's "Professor Harold Hill" hyped the threat of the city's pool hall, which he warned would ruin young people.  His solution: an uplifting boys' band, which he would create for a fee.  The plan was to skip town with the cash, leaving parents sadder but wiser.         

"ObamaScare's" more grandiose swindle allegedly would help some 47 million U.S. victims who lack health insurance.  The solution: a new federalized health care system, which the president will assemble -- for a vague fee, worry about the details later.  Plus, there's more government goodies, like saving the world, in his devilish bag of tricks.

"Well, either you're closing your eyes / To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge / Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated / By the presence of a pool table in your community." -- TMM lyrics. . ."(T)he danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little. . .markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited." -- Barack Obama

The trouble is, unlike the old musical, there are no 76 trombones playing wondrous music at the end -- just up to $76 Trillion in new national debt, which really would ruin all our kids, as well as the nation.  But the sour note doesn't faze Obama, who always has a newer and costlier Big Government scheme to dupe the marks with when an old one fails.    

For some reason not explained in his epic, the president believes Federal bureaucrats are endowed with almost supernatural powers to achieve virtually any goal.  Okay, we've had the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society and a bunch of other Democratic pipe-dreams that flopped, but this one's different.  "You've got me," he offers.  Yes, that and a whole lot of voter remorse out there in the hustings.

"We've surely got trouble! / Right here in River City, / Right here! / Gotta figger out a way / To keep the young ones moral after school!" -- TMM lyrics. . ."Every time we're in sight of reform, the special interests start fighting back with everything they've got.  They use their influence.  They run their ads.  And let's face it, they get people scared." -- Barack Obama

So, indefatigably,  the Messiah keeps moving and pitching the "you got disaster, I'll save you" script.  He's like the candy-man in a Sammy Davis tune, spreading our wealth while running the government with expert efficiency.  He can take a problem, sprinkle it with cash.  Cover it with paperwork and a miracle or two. The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can.  Don't worry, "the rich", who rip-off more than $250K, will pay the bills.

Remember, in his 2008 speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president, Obama pledged to "go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less  -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."

Yep, he delivered.  Last century's bureaucrats were paid peanuts.  Now, thanks to Obama, we've now got super-rich ones right there in our government.  Here's how Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) last month described the transformation --

"When the economy turned south two years ago, the Department of Defense had 1,868 employees earning $150,000 or more.  Today, there are 10,100 employees at the Pentagon taking home that salary. At the start of the economic slump, the Department of Transportation had only a single career employee earning more than $170,000. Today, there are more than 1,600 career federal workers at the DOT making that amount.  Obama has recommended an additional 2 percent pay raise for 2010. That’s unconscionable."

"Like to see some stuck-up jockey'boy / Sittin' on Dan Patch? Make your blood boil?" -- TMM

Oh, our budding government millionaires are fairly bursting with expertise, right?  Yeah, that's how the thousands of homeland security drones -- supposedly protecting us from "man-made disasters" -- let the "Christmas Bomber" slip through, even though he practically had "TERRORIST" printed on his forehead in big red letters.  "The system worked" because passengers wrestled him down.

"The Obama staff waited three hours to even tell him about the Christmas terrorist incident. As one pundit pointed out, the staff woke him up immediately to tell him he won the Nobel Prize for Peace. But a terror threat to the homeland was apparently much less important and urgent than that". . ."It takes a lot of people to screw up a country this size. Obama can't do it all on his own!"  -- Comments on media website

Now the president wants to apply the same wisdom to running our health care, and we'll be on our own then, as well.  To accomplish his miracle, he uses bills measured in pounds instead of pages.  The "new, modern" proposals read like cut-and-paste jobs from every  Democratic socialist fantasy molding away in last century's file drawer.        

Like a deceitful con-man, the Messiah's never actually put his name on a bill.  He's let the Flying Nan and Shifty Harry grind out the legislative sausage, so he won't be blamed if a lot of Dem serfs are defeated for re-election because they voted for it.  Obama stands above the fray and tosses a "concept" on the table now and then, to keep things moving.

On Feb. 22, Punxsutawney Obama emerged from his White House lair and saw the shadow of political defeat for his monster takeover.  Only six weeks left before the Easter recess when lawmakers would return to face hostile voters and lose taste for his rotten egg.  No time to waste, so he cranked-out an 11-page wish-list ingloriously titled "The President's Proposal", complete with yet another fake cost projection.  

Nobody bought the scam re-write, so Obama delved deeper into his "Democratic Con-Man's Handbook".  Just seven work days later he produced another glossy outline for transforming our country, this one including a couple of watered-down GOP ideas.  House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “the same massive government takeover of health care” that Americans had already rejected. 

"'Live within your means' is something that Americans have had to learn to live with the last three years. Now its time for our government to do the same". . ."(W)hat do you do when the overall way the govt. in America works is to criminalizing people for their own good?" -- Comments on media websites

Already numbed by fear of the president's reckless tampering, the huddling masses could only stare in horror.  Was this real, or a bad movie?  A sixth of the economy, and everyone's health, are to be built on shifting sands, revised on a weekly basis according to political winds, and desperately crammed down the nation's throat by wavering legislators bought-off with massive tax-paid bribes!  Is this a great way to run a government, or not?

The litter legislators have swept together complicates the health system with "hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees, and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions," columnist Charles Krauthammer has written.  "The only thing linking these changes -- such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs -- is political expediency."

"Let's hope the gov. dumps these bills in the trash where they belong! Simplification is in order". . ."Private sector profiteers are fighting the health plan with everything they've got". . ."Of course they are, this is nothing more than a power grab by the federal government to put them out of business and collect ALL of the health care revenue themselves." -- Comments on media websites

But, as usual, the President has decreed it's an emergency.  His demands must be met, right now!  The government doctor knows best.  Get it done before you go back to the voters, they don't count.  Don't think, don't read the bill, don't debate, just vote!  And if you vote wrong, Nancy or Harry will have your arse.  No bribes, no perks, no junkets, no earmarks.  No overlooking ethics transgressions.  For Dems, that would be the end of their world.  And, America burns.  

Thousands of years ago, Egyptian pharaohs built the great pyramids as testament to their immortality and grandeur.  Today, Democratic pharaohs in Washington are erecting an immense federalized health care monument to their own everlasting majesty.

In ancient times, legions of drones worked themselves to death hauling massive stone blocks up the sloping sides of memorials hiding tombs of their exalted leaders.  Now, millions of American grandchildren will spend their lives paying for a vast bureaucratic labyrinth sanctifying President Obama, House speaker Pelosi, and Senate boss Reid.

Cost was not an issue with the pyramid-builders, who could enlist armies of laborers with visions of contributing to a heavenly cause.  Current health mystics are elected with  conscripted labor union dues, and use financial fraud and prophecies of political nirvana to dupe the public and Congressional servants into spending limitless trillions.

Tellingly, in their Capitol debates the snake-oil promoters don't emphasize alleged medical benefits of their 2,400-page concoction.  Instead, there are appeals to vanity.  "Make history," lawmaker minions are exhorted.  Have "the courage" to act, we know "it's hard."

Why is it "courageous" or "hard" to vote for something that's supposedly so beneficial to America?  The reason can only be, Democratic leaders are fully aware their health care takeover is enormously harmful.  Millions will die by rationed care, and the nation will be bankrupt with trillions of dollars in added debt.  But wavering followers hoodwinked by fake financing schemes can be sacrificed for the greater goal of partisan victory.  Like martyrs steeped in radical religious beliefs, they've swallowed Democratic dogma that the bigger the government is, the better (for them, not the people.)

"There has to be a larger and more hidden agenda behind Obama for so many to be sacrificing themselves like this. I think Martial Law and the suspension of voting to replace these ba----ds is on the near horizon." -- Comment on web article

For the Terrible Troika, the only thing that counts is their personal historical glorification.  Just as pharaohs were mummified in a sarcophagus, our Federal kings hope to be wrapped in bureaucratic red tape and worshiped as founders of a new order forever in the hallowed crypts of Washington, the only destiny they cherish.

President Obama, for instance, seeks equal standing with Franklin D. Roosevelt, who initiated the Federal health care goal in his Jan. 11, 1944, "state of the union" address to Congress.  FDR laid out "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."  Included on the largely-socialist wish-list was "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health", along with entitlement to ample jobs, food, housing, education, and retirement income -- government gifts subsequently pursued by Dems.

"There is still time to turn this around. Kick Obamacare to the curb and watch how fast your numbers improve." -- Comment on web article

Then there's Hustling Harry Reid, a loser picked for majority leader because more talented Dem solons couldn't agree among themselves who should claim the politically-advantageous role (often a stepping-stone to presidential candidacy.)  So they settled on the soft-whispering undertaker look-alike who offered no competition for the Top Job.  Obsessive pursuit of health care takeover -- making himself historic, while his self-vaunted superiors go down in flames on election day -- became the obscure Nevadan's way of having the last laugh.  Better to occupy the pyramid than merely help build it.

"This won't be fixed overnight but the Dems will try to pass every bill they can before the Dems lose their majority." -- Comment on web article

Pelosi, the high-Flying Nan?  She just wants to have fun.  Already rich, she's reached a political peak in the House but is left out of Presidential speculation while a nonentity, Sarah Palin, gets frequent mention.  Even hapless Hillary Clinton still has her foot stuck in the door.  What better way to amend the sorry situation and humble mirror-struck Obama too, than by waving her gavel and granting him his fondest wish -- a disastrous health scheme that will rule-out a second term.  As part of the Messiah's failed team, Hillary will be older and wiser, but less of a rival to the capital's queen-bee with a stinger.  Pelosi v. Palin in 2012 has a nice ring.  The real game beats Monopoly every time.

"How about we just kill all the conservatives now, before the 2010 election. That way you won’t be frustrated because you’ll be in heaven next to Jesus in a big purple chair." -- Comment on web article

The big question bandied in Washington salons is, why would congressional Dems walk the plank for these puffed-up fakers?  Government is the Democrats' world, a self-important universe where they can preen and prance, while hurling thunderbolts from Olympus at the churning masses below and laughingly watching them jump.  They'll never understand why Palin would give up a governorship to descend into the riff-raff (actually, to demonstrate Republicans don't suffer the same statist delusion.)  Surrender power for money, when you can grab both?  Truly, she must be deranged.

"Are you listening house and senate democrats? Your own party is placing you under the bus and Obama is at the wheel." -- Comment on web article

But to get along on the Hill, you gotta go along.  That's the mantra.  Dems figure the people are clods who don't understand these nuances of Capital carnage, where the timid are routinely devoured by the carnivores.  Before there was FDR, there were Greek tragedies, which teach there's a time to live to the utmost and a time to die nobly.  By betting it all on the ultimate, birthing a federalized health care monster, you've achieved the promised land.  If you lose, lay down your playbook and walk away; you've given your best.  Let a new generation battle the beasts of oppression.  Take a college sinecure, a diplomatic post, write a book, you've earned your status as a post-governance baron.

"The unemployment rate will be the big problems for the Democrats. Their only hope is (1) to remind the voters that Republican economic theory caused the disaster and (2) demonstrate that things are getting better or come up with programs to make them get better (WPA?)" -- Comment on web article

Nah, that's the public bull.  In their hearts the martyrs hope for a Democratic resurrection, despite the suddenly flawed polls.  Even as over-confident Republicans count their political blessings, Donk chieftains no doubt are plotting this year's October surprise.  They came up with a winner in Obama's presidential chase, after all.  Why not now?

"Democrats’ Plan for Election 2010: Cheat." -- Comment on web article

On June 26, 2008, Sen. Charles Schumer, head of the Senate's Democratic Campaign Committee, stepped away from TV cameras for once and wrote a letter.  Sent to Federal banking system regulators and leaked to the press, it advised that California's IndyMac Bancorp, a major mortgage lender, was on the brink of failure.  Over the next 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion and the firm ultimately failed.  Officials complained of "interference in the regulatory process," but Dems had the their surprise.

The IndyMac collapse touched off escalating financial disasters, centered on trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages handed out like political candy to low-income home buyers under a Democratic-enforced program.  By election day, the economy was in shambles and voters blamed President Bush, who was in office when it happened.  In February, 2009, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (PA), head of the House Capital Markets Subcommittee, told C-Span the world economy had faced collapse in a matter of hours.

According to the Dem lawmaker, there had been a "tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars," over an hour or two on Sept. 15, 2008.  "The Treasury opened its window to help. They pumped a hundred and five billion dollars into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic and there.

"And that's what actually happened. If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o'clock that afternoon, five-and-a-half trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. . .It would have been the end of our political system and our economic systems as we know it," Kanjorski said.  His claim has been debunked by various investigators.  But if it was even partly true, who could have caused the alleged $550 billion withdrawal?  If started by Democratic billionaires, it may have been history's most reckless gamble.

Republicans have the advantage now, but by October Dems may roll the dice again.  What will this year's surprise  be?  It could include one or more of the following -- (1) staged death or capture of Osama bin Laden or his top killer, Ayman al-Zawahiri, just before the election, falsely credited to security actions by Obama and congressional Democrats; (2) scandal leaks involving major GOP candidates in key battleground states, a favorite Obama tactic; (3) large Federal stimulus grants, together with overblown job claims, in vote-rich areas, hyped in a Democrat photo-op series leading up to voting day.

"The bulk of the Stimulus money (~600 billion) is spent entirely in the first 6 months of 2010. The stimulus hasn't 'failed', it hasn't even been spent yet!! This is reelection money, designed to get the economy booming, at least until November 2010... This will help the Dems retain House seats. We are only in the third inning of this congressional election cycle. The Dems will come back." -- Comment on web article

Or, (4) a coordinated pre-election "good-news" blast such as national employment gains (utilizing revised, unannounced changes in the counting method), huge stock market leap keyed by Democratic millionaires and billionaires with post-election rewards to follow, and optimistic recovery predictions by assemblies of partisan economists, academics, entertainers and other experts; (5) U.S. aid for an October Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, leaked to the New York Times; or (6) invasion from outer space, by saviors who'll destroy the world unless Dems are elected.  Desperate House lives are at stake, so something's likely.

"Dems will have to accelerate the naturalization process to have an effect in 2010 or 2012. Normally, it takes 5 years to be naturalized after a green card is issued. I wouldn't put it past them to do this, though. Naturalize 10 million illegals as citizens before the 2010 elections -- especially if it is their only chance to remain in power." -- Comment on web article

Even if Democrats enact their socialized medicine plot, and keep their congressional majority by some kind of fraud in the 2010 election, there's still hope for reversal.  The most important part of Roosevelt's New Deal was the 1935 Social Security Act, a government ponzi scheme funded by payroll taxes rather than the general fund.  "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions," FDR later said.  "With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

FDR was smarter than Obama, who likes to spread the wealth straight from the Treasury.  Like the subprime mortgage beneficiaries, low-income ObamaScare recipients won't have to pay taxes, and thus gain a perceived "right" to their largess.  It will be funded by "the rich".  Someday, "damn politicians" will figure a way to repeal the ruinous program before a Kanjorski-like specter unfolds.  Hopefully.  And, America burns.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

Well, maybe.  If election officials can ignore challenges to Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president, wouldn't they have to do the same for the Terminator?

Some state legislators are worried nobody's enforcing the U.S. citizenship requirement.  And they're doing something about it -- Arizona's House Government Committee voted 6-1 Tuesday to approve a bill requiring future presidential contenders to prove to the Arizona secretary of state they're "natural born citizens" to get their names on the ballot.

At the very least, said the measure's sponsor, GOP Rep. Judy Burges, candidates would have to produce a valid birth certificate.  During the 2008 campaign, Obama flashed a Hawaii certificate, but it was not examined by Federal officers with the expertise to determine legitimacy.  He was simply sworn-in with no inquiry, despite protests.

If the Arizona measure is enacted into law, and other states follow suit, any hopes California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger might have would be deep-sixed.  But not everyone favors the reform.

"I think this is bill is a VERY good idea. Too bad we didn't have this in place 2 years ago," said a commenter on an "Arizona Daily Star" article about the proposal.  "What a bunch of numbskulls. The AZ legislature really is a joke," said another.  Other comments:

"The Constitution does not detail the methods for complying with its representative requirements". . ."I do not have a problem with Obama's birth certificate, but what about all of the other things he's hiding?". . ."A birth certificate just has someone's names on file as mother and father of record - no other corroborating evidence is asked for to prove any such facts before they are added to the record!"

"Now if this bill passes. . .our Secretary of State will have the authority to keep all Democrats off the ballot. The Secretary only needs to have reasonable cause to believe the candidate is not eligible. They don't have to prove anything. . .With a birther as a Secretary of State, we will be Leno-fodder for years". . ."Only an insane or Anti-American person would object to a Presidential candidate showing proof of citizenship!"

According to the article, Rep. Burges never mentioned President Obama during Tuesday's hearing, or the controversy over whether he actually was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. "Another legal theory of 'birthers'. . .is that even if he was born in Hawaii, he lost his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian and moved the family there.

"But Burges previously told Capitol Media Services she has suspicions about Obama's loyalties, including bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and a quote from his book -- taken out of context -- that 'when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side.'"

Much of the citizenship concern seems to assume that if Obama can be elected to the nation's highest political office without proof of meeting the constitutional requirements, anyone can.  In theory, at least, that could benefit Germany-born Arnold.

The constitution prescribes an Electoral College procedure under which each state appoints, in such manner as its legislature may direct, a number of Electors equal to its total number of U.S. Senators and Representatives.  Each state currently uses its statewide popular vote on election day to appoint Electors, who later meet in Washington, D.C., as the Electoral College, to count votes for the President and Vice-President.

Eligibility proof legally could be sought in three places -- (1) at the state level, where a responsible official certifies the Electors' victories and forwards them to Washington, (2) the Electoral College, and (3) the Federal judiciary, which could adjudicate any challenge.

In Obama's 2008 election, no state questioned his birth eligibility; the Electoral College simply counted the forwarded numerical results; and the Supreme Court punted, by rejecting a New Jersey voter's complaint without comment.  All of which endorsed the will of voters, but left fodder for conspiracy theorists -- and opened the door for possible future problems.

Let's say the Arizona bill doesn't get enacted, and other states don't act.  The Terminator decides the hell with it, he's going to run for president in 2012.  His political brawn and beer-hall brogue are needed to save the nation from economic blitzkrieg.  Admittedly, his non-citizen birth would seem to stand in the way, if officials objected.  

But, what if Arnold claimed the above three gatekeepers' lack of response to serious Obama eligibility challenges set a legal precedent?  If they now scrutinized his qualification, it would be selective enforcement of the law and maybe illegal.  They're required to rubber-stamp his victory, just as they did the Messiah's.  Oops!

Congress also has authority to implement the constitutional standards by statute, and has specified the date for Federal elections.  But it hasn't required political parties to submit proof their candidate meets the requirements, as does the Arizona proposal.  Democratic leaders apparently don't favor opening up Obama's election problems to debate.  

So, citizens must submit a birth certificate if they want to enroll their child in a school sports program, or obtain a passport, but Presidential candidates don't.  That means Arnold Schwarzenegger -- or anyone else not born in the U.S. -- may have a chance.  And, America burns.

Defanged and dejected, President Obama angrily is lashing-out at America in revenge.  He's solving the Medicare deficit by slaughtering millions of GOP-voting seniors, and inflicting sharia-like health care dismemberment on everyone else.

A year ago he strode into office as the Messiah -- all-knowing, omnipotent, endowed by the masses with miraculous powers of hope and change.  He was the one we'd been waiting for.  He would make everyone's dreams come true.  Hallelujah!    

Then the health care bill came along.  It had been a cherished goal of Democrats -- a virtual holy grail -- since FDR, if not before.  Maybe even prior to Robert Byrd's Senate metamorphosis.  But Republican heathen always had blocked it.      

Now, at last, adoption of the wondrous measure seemed assured.  The party of goodness and mercy had a dominant majority in Congress.  The president was salivating.  Soon, a benevolent government would take care of everyone's ailments.  You could keep your insurance, you could keep you doctor.  Nobody would pay, and it would save money!      

His holiness turned details of the takeover to trusted disciples on Capitol Hill and moved on to the next challenge, saving the world from global warming.  House speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), resplendent in her vermillion pants-suit, wanted to use urban bath houses as a model -- a public option, masked intentions and no abortion problem.  Senate leader Harry Reid (NV), who hadn't struck gold in Searchlight, favored jackpot-style payoffs to Dem colleagues gambling with a stacked deck.  Both figured they could keep their $193,400 salary indefinitely once all voters were dependent on Federal health decisions.

Fast-forward to a year later.  It's 2010, and the health bill from hell hasn't been passed.  The president's poll numbers are in the tank, and he's viewed more as a menace than a messiah.  His once-sweeping program of reform and revival has been swept under a rug.  High-Rollin' Harry's in political trouble, along with virtually every other congressional Democrat who vote for the now-hated ObamaScare bill.  The administration's a shambles.

What to do?  The obvious answer is, listen to the people.  Abandon Soviet-style one-party rule.  If you want something as universal and major as health care reform, work with all sectors of society.  Incredibly, though, the White House just says "no" -- double-down and enact the dreaded 2,400-page monster.  We'll hold a "let's pretend" TV mockumentary with Republicans to show we're working in the open, even as Capitol Dems secretly craft the bill's reincarnation with no public input.  To the political victors belong the spoils.
Losing is hard for anyone, let alone a man who's so vain he probably brushes his teeth while watching a teleprompter.  You get the impression Obama actually believed the overweening praise and adulation showered on him during the campaign and after.  Yet even the cheerleading of a rapturous press couldn't prevail over the escalating worry -- and now, terror -- experienced by ordinary Americans as snippets of the president's real motives and goals emerged from the shadows.

People are realizing there's a reason why Washington employed fake urgency and drastic secrecy to rush socialized medicine and other draconian legislation to adoption.  It's so odious even partisan lawmakers didn't want to read their unsettling handiwork before casting robotic "aye" votes.  If the public had known what was being done, supposedly to "help" them, they would have risen in anger and demanded its rejection.  But, once the votes were counted, it was too late.

The same flaws lie behind wholesale abandonment of longstanding congressional rules and procedures designed to protect our democracy from dictatorship by a transient and intransigent majority.  Presently, our Democratic "saviors" plan to ram their revamped, secrecy-shrouded ObamaScare plan through the Senate using a "reconciliation" procedure intended solely to enact essential measures such as the government's budget.  The huge, non-germane health takeover simply will be added as amendments to a budget bill.

All it takes is 50 votes.  Sufficient Democratic fatalists reportedly are ready to strap on their militant vests and cast yet another vote for the party and heavenly rewards such as the Louisiana Purchase.  For example, Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), who recently put on a integrity-retirement act, is said to be OK with the tainted anti-public process.

Timid whimpers from "Blue-Dog" (actually Lap-Dog) Democrats in the House have raised some hopes the risen bill can be defeated there, but it's a stretch.  Most have swallowed Pelosi's corn pone, that the party's vaunted base won't vote for them unless the ideological victory symbol is enacted.  That may be true, but the conservative-pretenders weren't elected by a clique of pimple-faced "morally superior" wannabes whose politics are inhaled like pot from millionaire late-night comedians, who play them for suckers.  There's a new base out there, and it isn't propagandized college kids.  Ask Martha Coakley.  Who dat?  She's the Dem atty. gen. who lost to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), now just a forgotten memory -- as any Pelosi hound likely will be after this year's elections.    

Lawmakers are trying to find the landmines in Obama's Revenge, but he already knows it's radioactive.  He's trying to trick Republicans into voting for it.  Meanwhile, the president's engaged in his favorite activities, talking and spending your grandchildren's money.  He's handing out free slush fund cash like a Hugo Chavez improv act.  Billions for highways here, billions for Great Lakes cleanup there, pocket change for teachers -- all spent in violation of the constitution's requirement that expenditures be approved by Congress.   But then, he said all along he didn't like the constitution.  We just didn't believe him.  And, America burns.

President Obama, aka Hoover II, says his massive Federal spending was forced on him by the George Bush recession.  Everyone should be thankful the borrowed money spree prevented a Depression, he modestly adds.

Nice try, Herbert, but your 2011 budget bomb launched in January proves you would squander funds recklessly even in a good economy.  And your improvised government spending has spread enough terror to cause Depression II, unless Congress disarms it.

"How long will Obama mention Bush?  This is becoming stale, Mr President". . ."Obama has been smoking something more than his cigarettes! He needs to get off the blame game for once! . . .Was he not in the senate two years prior to his presidency voting for all this spending?" -- Comments on ABC-TV news article.

Because of Obama, the nation's so frozen in fear of new taxes and regs it won't spend, hire or even come up for air.  Just suffer and not make waves, or you'll join the jobless 9.5% that was pledged to be 8%.  The heinous winter will yield to spring, but will DC ever relent?

Don't wait for hope and change.  Hidden in the spending plan Obama sent to Congress is his "budget outlook" for the next ten years, a framework for reckless squandering of the nation's wealth virtually on a permanent basis, in both good times and bad.  (Unless it's his way of hinting a decade of anthropogenic Depression is in store.)

Huge debts are to be inflicted on future generations, starting with the Obama-supported 2009 shortfall of $1.4 Trillion, and his $1.349 Trillion loss for 2010.  Colossal deficits would continue each succeeding year.  The "grand" total for 2011-2020 would be $6 Trillion, all added to the existing national debt (Congressional Budget Office figures.)

So Bush was a big spender?  His last budget, submitted in January 2009, included a total ten-year (2010-2019) deficit projection of $3.1 Trillion, half the Obama destruction.  

"More spending, more spending, more spending! I wish I was allowed to do that. I'll simply tell the bank it's the only way I can make up my deficits!" -- Article comment.

If the President's dreadful vision of unending disastrous deficits were enacted into law, it would be the coup de grâce for America.  No nation could withstand such repeated nuclear-level attacks on its economy.  To pay the bill for his blunders, Obama's creating a commission to seek new revenue, probably a national sales tax, but it's a hopeless cause.       

"This man is the exact opposite of Midas. Everything he touches turns to dirt."  -- Article comment.

Of course, Obama's an innocent victim of the financial debacle.  Bush is to blame.  At an April 29, 2009, citizens' forum in Arnold, Mo., for example, the President was supposed to review his first hundred days.  But here's what he said: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. . .That wasn't me."  (The amount is false, but it truly "wasn't him" -- the red-ink would have been greater if Obama's wishes had prevailed.)   

"Number two," Obama added, "there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps.  So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years."  

Huh?  Bank repayments of the $240 billion in TARP funds loaned to them by Bush were required by law to be used for deficit reduction.  But Obama plans to recycle the "one time" income as a permanent slush fund for more stimulus, which will be called something else since the first $787 billion didn't work.  Mythical "green jobs" still won't happen, but a blizzard of election-year propaganda will mask the ideology-driven failure.    

"Obama is trying to deliberately destroy the American economy so he can 'come to the rescue' with Marxism". . ."GET OUT THE SHOVELS, HERE IT COMES AGAIN!". . . Obama has already spent more in one year than ALL THE PRESIDENTS from the time of George Washington up to Reagan! So let's just shove 3.8 TRILLION on top of that and maybe set a record that NO ONE in history can beat." -- Article comments.

It's always perilous to try making sense of the President's vaporous remarks, but his "next two years" reference seemed to indicate he expected the recession to last only that long.   Thus, after 2010, deficits would stop -- due, no doubt, to the miraculous effect of his wise policies.  In reality, his first year was wasted wrangling over health care and global lying, rather than creating economy-boosting jobs.  Now in his second year, we're being told to expect more high unemployment.  The first 100 months will fizzle like the first 100 days.    

There is a framework for ending a recession, utilized successfully by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, among others -- reduce taxes, and get government out of the way of business expansion.  Inflicting giant new Federal programs, such as socialized medicine and pervasive energy taxes, is the exact opposite of what's needed.  Yet the Obama administration stupidly persists in its bull-headed quest.  It's too big to fail.

"But they have an infinite supply of money, they control the printing presses." -- Article comment.

Sadly, a real solution is anathema to the President and his Democratic co-conspirators in Congress.  Relentlessly, they're pushing a socialist/big government agenda, at all costs, in secrecy, with no public input, by bastardizing legislative rules and using public funds to bribe lawmakers.  Lobbyists and far-left special interests are in control.  A lot of House- and Senate-cleaning by voters will be needed before order is restored.   

"Reagan, paraphrased: 'A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama loses his.' "-- Article comment.

In the meantime, we the people must not be fooled by partisan fakery.  Such as the President vowing in his state of the union address to turn his attention to jobs, even while Democrats in the audience are plotting their next move on health care takeover.  Or a TV show-and-tell with Republicans, as Donks-only meetings are held behind closed doors on Capitol Hill to apply finishing touches to yet another version of the noxious takeover bill.

No matter what they say in public, Democrats are going to continue with their career suicidal missions to re-shape America in ways almost nobody but them wants.  They'll cast a last vote for the cause, and retire from Congress.  Why not?  Many consider themselves already doomed politically because of their recorded support for ObamaScare.  For once, they may be right.  And, America burns.           

The more liberal they are, the harder they fall.  -- Updated adage

Time editor Rick Stengel: "The story of Barack Obama was the great overarching, titanic narrative of this past year. . .He was the Person of the Year in the most universal sense. . . He's charismatic. . .a stupendous speaker. . .hyper-competent. . .extraordinary. . .the most popular man on the planet."  (Comments on Dec. 18, 2008, Charley Rose show.)  

BULL-ETIN:  Time's newsstand sales dropped 34.9 percent in the six months ending last December.  

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas: "In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of GOD. He's going to bring all different sides together."  (Interview comments on June 6, 2009.)

BULL-ETIN:  Newsweek's newsstand sales plummeted 41.3 percent in the above period.

At year's end, only about 90,000 news masochists were paying for the right to be fed weekly doses of flawed news by Time, and about 62,000 by Newsweek.  Good Housekeeping, which doesn't burden itself with liberal nonsense, sold 395,000.  Single-copy sales of all magazines in the U.S. fell 9.1 percent, according to industry audits.

Maybe "news" mags should get their house in order -- except, lib publications would rather go out of business than tell it straight.  Such suicidal stubbornness is even more apparent among daily newspapers, nearly all of which now print public issue-related "news" virtually indistinguishable from what used to be called editorials.  And editorials often must include a lot of factual background, since readers can't get it from "news".

New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.: "When I graduated from college in 1974, my fellow students and I had just ended the war in Vietnam and ousted President Nixon. . .we entered the real world committed to making it a better, safer, cleaner, more equal place. We were determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.  Our children, we vowed, would never know that.  So, well, sorry.

"It wasn't supposed to be this way.  You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land.  You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose.  You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain.  You weren't.  But you are.  And for that I'm sorry." -- Address to 2006 graduates at State U. of New York.

BULL-ETIN:  Sulzberger's apologia for America, delivered before President Obama made groveling cool, bared a King-sized case of liberal guilt.  He has a lot to be humble about.  The fourth-generation Ochs-Sulzberger scion inherited the family's seat as publisher of a financially healthy and respected Times.  Promptly, he assuaged his self-inflicted onus by exploiting its pages on a personal quest to save the world from imagined flaws.  The Gray Lady already had lost its virginity.  Now it became a tramp.  

When messianic liberals are unleashed, the end justifies the means.  As overzealous NYT staffers took up the boss's mission, journalistic standards fell by the press-side.  Several news fraud scandals rocked the newspaper, just as liberal scientists' Climate-Gate recently shook the "global warming"/world-government establishment.  It didn't help when the Times leaked national security-jeopardizing exposes of Bush administration weapons in the War on Terror.  Circulation losses were ignored, noblesse oblige was all.      

As if destruction of editorial quality wasn't enough, Art Jr. also rolled losing dice on the business side.  He squandered billions on Times stock which quickly lost value, acquiring failing newspapers, and construction of a massive new headquarters building which then had to be sold.  You know an institution's crashing when it erects a monument to itself rather than doing something useful.  Circulation dropped like a stoned journalist.  By the time the ego-edifice was finished, so many employees had been laid-off the vacant offices would have been occupied only by night guards and rodents.        

Now Sulzberger's struggling to pay interest on major debt, including $250 million owed to Carlos Slim Helú, a Mexican telecommunications billionaire who may take over Times assets if and when it goes belly-up.  If that happens, who would head the new version?  Ominously, beleaguered Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez recently launched a new show, "Suddenly Chavez", on National Radio.  Notices could be made on it at any time, day or night, including resignation if the fleeing Caracas Crackpot pops up in New York seeking capitalist work.  (Just kidding.  But who knows the possible Slim pickings?)  
   
The NYT remains afloat, but other once-haughty daily news purveyors have given up the ghost rather than the joy of preaching liberalism.  By one estimate, the death toll was 105 in the first part of  2009 alone, with conglomerates the Gannett Co., GateHouse Media, the Sun-Times Media Group and the Journal Register Co. losing 61.  It's getting hard to keep track, since Editor & Publisher, which did the job since 1884, went out of business.

It's not that the failed newspapers didn't try.  They laid-off more than 10,000 employees last year, no doubt including journalists who'd written many a biased story excusing the lack of job growth during the Obama administration.  They also devoted much ink to explaining the cause of newspaper woes.  It was the bad economy (inherited from Bush, of course), and newfangled competitors such as the Internet and Craig's List.  Those sources unfairly let people choose for themselves, rather than be lectured to by demigods.

BULL-ETIN:  "Almost all the dead or dying newspapers are cheerleading mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. Those newspapers catered to the 25% that constitute the extreme Left and then they wonder where their readership has gone?  Newspapers cannot ignore 75% of their potential market just so they can score political points for their political team.  Capitalism does not work that way."  -- Blog comment.

But wait!  Amid the carnage, two major newspapers, the Denver Post and the Seattle Times, actually gained significant circulation last year.  Oh, it was because their main competitors, the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, stopped publishing.  Cannibalism has been a staple of the media diet for years, but what do you do when you're the last meal standing?  Apply for Obama stimulus, since you're too big to fail?  Heck, don't worry about resulting bias, we're already doing that.

BULL-ETIN:  "The big brain dead mainstream media are just liars. . .I don't care about their agenda, left, right, I only care about the news, real news that I can make my own judgment". . ."Why should I read a newspaper that tells me that 9.5% unemployment is a sign of a great economy?". . ."I would read a newspaper for news.  What I see is viciously partisan propaganda.  Maybe it has always been that way, but with the many sources of news now available there is no reason to put up (pay for!) that c--p." -- Blog comments.         

Will the lib media ever get it?  A cable channel, Fox TV News, has made a fortune giving millions of viewers what they want -- "fair and balanced" reporting which includes conservative opinion.  What about the competition?  MSNBC'S Chris Matthews, a former Democratic congressional aide, saw Obama's ascendancy in biblical terms -- "This is the New Testament. . .I felt this thrill going up my leg.  I mean, I don't have that too often.  No, seriously.  It's a dramatic event."  And, America burns.   

God bless our battling ballerina! - News article comment

When you're as powerful as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, it's easy to end criticism over some stupid remark you made -- just erase the mistake.

After being caught using what is now called "the R-word", the former ballet dancer wants to eliminate it from the English language.  And he can Côté de Derrière using all the Federal government's powers, including passing a new law, to dictate the self-serving correction to 300 million uninformed Americans.  

But first, Emanuel has to keep his job -- and he may be worried.  When his gaffe was reported on Jan. 26 by the Wall Street Journal, political oracles wondered whether he would be the first administration figure to exit following Obama's recent political and legislative defeats.  After all, a single word, "Macaca", had toppled former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), a possible Presidential candidate, when repeatedly employed by media.

To forestall such concerns, the normally offense-minded "Rahmbo" engaged in the usual, if overdone, apologies and pledges that follow a high politician's fall from grace -- until Feb. 1, when Dem nemesis Sarah Palin unholstered her Facebook page and demanded his resignation.  With blood in the water the issue now was self-preservation.  Someone must have leaked Emanuel's August 2009 remark, at a strategy session of liberal groups and White House aides, to the media.  Time to go on the attack, but who was the culprit?

Suspicion turned to Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, who was hiding in the tall grass after (1) his controversial decision to try top terrorists in a New York civil court had been reversed by the White House, and (2) critics were blasting his FBI's talk-ending Mirandizing of the Christmas Panty-bomber.  Was Holder trying to save his skin by setting up Emanuel, who might have engineered the trial switch, as an alternative media target?  

Holder's surge continued on Feb. 2, when national intelligence director Dennis Blair told a Senate panel the Bomber still was talking.  "We got good intelligence. We're getting more," Blair bragged.  Although GOP hackles were raised by the political release of info helpful to terrorists, Holder got his groove back.  By Feb. 3 he boasted, in a letter to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), that he personally made the decision to handle the attempted airliner downing merely as a criminal act, not terrorism.    

But Chicago-trained Emanuel isn't know for playing patsy.  A New Yorker article, available on-line Feb. 4, quoted an "informed source" as disclosing he had fought hard against Holder's proposed New York trial, as a matter of practical politics -- a revelation that boosted the staff honcho's status.  Stay tuned for in-fighting results.
As reports of the government's dictionary industry takeover filtered to the masses, on-line responders struggled to find words to express their contempt for Emanuel.  "He is a foul-mouthed manipulative jerk. . .a fascist and an egomaniac". . ."I'll go with charming.  Like a leopard, sleek, silent and dangerous" (doing a pas de chat?). . ."A rotting dead fish."  (He is said to have mailed a rotten fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways.)  

"Cold, calculating and looks like a Chicago mobster," sniffed another. "I see no charm, just steely coldness, much like Barry himself."  (Emanuel does bear a resemblance to George Raft, an old-time movie actor who enjoyed much success playing gangster roles, perhaps because, reputedly, he was one.  If Raft was the first method actor, Rhambo could be a prototype method politician, acting mean because he is mean.)

Emanuel also had defenders: "You all seem so worried that the Dems are going to screw up the good things the Bushies left this country.  I, for one, am glad we have a ball buster in this role."  Hey, Rahm could try out for "The Nutcracker" this fall if he needs work.

A "Liberal", seemingly in the know, put it this way -- "Republicans just have not figured this guy out and continue to underestimate him.  R.E. is the best behind the scene politician on either side of the aisle.  He keeps under the radar with a very prissy public persona; making it tough for his political foes to engage him as a man.  For the same reason that we can't take a full swing at Palin, they can't swing at him.  His throat cutting gestures, foul language, and physical threats which have garnered him notoriety have not hindered his reputation.  If he looked like John Murtha or Jim Webb, he would have been run out of town.  But when it's delivered by a slight individual with over-the-top effeminate mannerisms, he (can) get away with it. . ."

So, who's the real Emanuel?  One little-known fact:  his mom once was a community organizer in Chicago, not an auspicious heritage item given the current failings of Emanuel's boss, who had a similar background.  (What Chicago exile in D.C. wasn't a community organizer?)  Anyway, it must be difficult doing the requisite dirty work of politics if people keep wondering whether you can prance better than, say, Tom Delay.  Making a show of nasty, ill-mannered churlishness could help, but it's habit-forming.
 
A peek at Wikipedia discloses Rahm's mother encouraged him to take ballet lessons as a boy.  He graduated from the Evanston School of Ballet and won a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet, but turned it down to attend Sarah Lawrence College, which had a strong dance program.  There, he gained an introduction to politics by joining the congressional campaign of David Robinson of Chicago.  He graduated in 1981 with a B.A. in Liberal Arts, and received an M.A. in speech from Northwestern U. in 1985.  

After college, Emanuel apparently felt he'd be better at spinning gold than pirouettes.  He embarked on a political career, delivering what candidates need most -- knowledge of where the money is.  After fundraising jobs for Democrats in Illinois campaigns and then nationally, he showed he could picked a real winner by enlisting as finance director in Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign.  When the man from Hope won, Rahm became a senior adviser at the White House from 1993 to 1998.  As a leading strategist for the rejected Hillarycare, he learned the pitfalls of socialized medicine schemes -- a lesson re-learned when adding Change to Hope fared no better in 2009.     
Emanuel consoled himself by resigning from government in 1998 to go where the real money is -- investment banking.  He joined a firm now know as Dresdner Kleinwort, and raked-in $16.2 million in just two and a half years, so he knows whereof Obama speaks when he blasts the bloated pay of bankers.  With cash in hand, the refueled Rahm was named by Clinton to the Board of Freddie Mac, a favorite nesting ground for deserving Democrats.  Although paying only $320,000, it was a pretty good gig.  The board met no more than six times per year, leaving plenty of time to explore political opportunities.   

Says Wikipedia:  "During his time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.  The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director.

"The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) later accused the board of having 'failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.'  Emanuel resigned from the board in 2001 when he ran for Congress," the on-line informer said.  In the House, Rahm didn't have to worry about ethics quibbling.  Admiring Democrats soon elected him chairman of their caucus, the fourth-ranking spot behind Speaker Pelosi.  

But now, Emanuel's down to becoming this year's Comeback Kid.  He's on a quest to expunge the admittedly pejorative R-word from all government laws, regulations, and discourse.  An army of lawyers will be hired to re-write more pages of legalese than in Obama's health care takeover bill.  But the effort could stimulate Federal employment, thereby bringing into play the "D(ebt)-word" which may be next in-line for extinction.

The question is, how do you pass a new law abolishing the R-word without using it in said law, so enforcers will know what word to punish?  Why not just add it to the unofficial list of frowned-on words, instead of aiming the government gun?  Even that's too potent for 1st Amendment rightsers, but it beats prison.  

It's getting dangerous even to speak other than as directed by Washington's trash-mouth champ, let alone fail to spend your money as he demands.  Under the President's health care takeover, a citizen could be tossed in jail for not purchasing health insurance.  Now you'll be targeted for using a disfavored term.  And you can't CYA by issuing a diktat.     

In January 2003, Emanuel he was named to the House Financial Services Committee, and sat on the subcommittee that oversaw Freddie Mac.  He skipped sensitive hearings, allegedly to avoid any appearance of favoritism, impropriety, or conflict of interest.  Open Secrets reported Rahm "was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry", Wikipedia said.  Meanwhile, the housing industry collapsed, as the White House pursued what's really important, ObamaScare.  And, America burns.

                                                                                                     -- President Obama

Rickety Harry Reid woke up, but other Democrats may have groaned when they heard the preacher-in-chief's state of the union command.  They'd expected a re-direction toward jobs, not a call to arms for more healthcare martyrdom.

"Hard"?  How about, "I know you gotta vote your guts out, against the overwhelming wishes of the people you represent, and you'll probably be defeated for re-election."  The President's admission voting for health care takeover is "hard" indicates Democratic lawgivers know what they're doing is morally wrong and politically toxic.

But all 60 Senate Dems/Indies and nearly all Houseboys have already voted for the disastrous legislation, and face voter retaliation this year or later.  The question is, will they continue following their Messiah over the ObamaScare cliff, if he so demands?  The President's frantic scurrying in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown's Mass. Miracle sent contradictory clues as to his intentions.

At the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, Obama drew attention for lamenting the "erosion of civility" in the nation's political debate.  A news article comment recalled the President "Attack(ed) the Supreme Court Justices for their correct decision and did so during the State of the Union address while they were sitting there showing respect for the office. . .Hypocrite!"  Another chided Obama's chief of staff: "Take Rahm Emanuel, and wash his 'F---ing Retarded' mouth out with soap."

But Obama's most important remark indicated he still wants Congress to take a dive: "We may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth."  Reports of ObamaScare's demise may be exaggerated.  Sooner or later, Congressional Democrats likely will resume battling for their true faith, that government should control medical care.

Actually, warriors on both sides of the trench see another year of warfare over the ill-fated issue as a possible benefit.  Bill Clinton told Democrats they'll be re-elected if they pass the health seduction, and Loose-Zipper Bill never lies.  Republicans figure while Congress is stuck on ObamaScare it won't launch other legislative skirmishes in Obama's war on America, such as new job-destroying energy and environmental taxes.  

A hidden trend: to the extent any rational Dems lurk in the Senate, some may secretly assist a "committee filibuster" ostensibly to perfect the health takeover, but actually aimed at tying-up legislative advancement of their President's jobs- and votes-destroying agenda, thus saving their own skin.  Simply repeating the "Bush caused it" mantra explaining the nation's downturn, when Dems controlled Congress, won't fly.     

Logically, panchyderms should tramp their way to victory on health care, provided the Frankenstein bill isn't passed.  Donk superstars wasted 2009 wrangling over packing more socialism into their 2,400-page testament, and their poll numbers plummeted.  A repeat  performance this year could seal a November Great Awakening by voters, in favor of the GOP.

In his long-winded emergence before Congress, the secrecy-craving President didn't mention the nation's actual state -- jobless, broke and terrified by skyrocketing spending, taxes and debt.  He made a few perfunctory remarks about jobs, but the proposed illegal transfer of $30 million in repaid TARP funds for small business loans won't stimulate hiring.  

The problem isn't lack of credit, but tangible fear of Obama's mindless plans for government expansion.  Everyone's waiting to see how awful it gets when Congress acts, and it looks like another ice age.  Meanwhile, the President's planning new foreign junket sightings so he can look like he's doing something other than hide and talk.  Canada, anyone?

The President wants more jobs, but only in Federal agencies, where civilian employment now is over 2,000,000 and rising.  Under ObamaScare, 20,000 bumbling new bureaucrats would be in charge of the nation's health system, an expense somehow omitted from budget projections.  If you like the way thousands of daydreaming Obamacrats at multiple agencies run airline security, with passengers required to provide their own defense, you'll love the way a hundred-plus bureaus, panels and agencies contemplated by the health care takeover mire your treatment in more tape than King Tut.

Of course, all those new government shirkers will be unionized, and that's the point.  With their monthly dues adding to Democratic campaign coffers, the party of the little guy won't have to rely on minor contributions from pickup-driving dupes.  Ready for a doctor strike?

If health Federalization happens, all pols will have to travel to Ottawa for heart surgery, rather than the other way around.  On the plane, they'll get lots of glares from other care-seeking passengers who're suspicious of more sabotage.  Maybe Tehran Nan Pelosi will rent her fleet of tax-paid airliners to privileged lawmakers wishing to dodge public contact.

We the People have become We the Subjects, watching helplessly as an out-of-control Congress saddles future generations with ruinous financial burdens.  When the Hoover/Obama Depression arrives, our children and grandchildren may suffer on a scale comparable to the earthquake devastation of Haiti, and there won't be any functioning military to prevent invasion.  Pockets of Taliban rule could emerge, with their own sharia law solution to health needs -- cutting off hands or arms.

It's a frightening scenario, but with leaders as outrageously ideological, duplicitous and reckless as those running the administration, no calamity is impossible.  Democrats chide Congressional Republicans for "always voting No", but it's a political dodge.  "Always voting No" is exactly what's needed now, and never more urgently.  And, America burns.

Seat my Senator now! -- "Liberal-Bostonian" comment on news article.

Add "swear-in fraud" to the bag of dirty and illicit tricks Democrats use to defraud voters and get elected.  

After promising not to delay the seating of Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), Senate majority leader Reid is taking a lethargic 23 days to oust non-elected Democratic hack Paul Kirk, so Brown can be sworn-in.  So far, the delay has allowed another 60-40 partisan Senate vote, to increase the national debt by $1.9 trillion.  More could be in store.

The Jan. 29 debt ram-through, executed just two days after President Obama's frugality-promising "state of the union" performance, enables Democrats to continue massive spending until after this year's elections.  Four days later, the President showed the kind of thrift he really had in mind by handing Congress his incredible $3.8 Trillion "partial spending freeze" budget for next year.  All the spending duplicity followed Brown's Jan. 19 election, which showed overwhelming public desire for a halt to the spending outpour.   

Despite the "freeze", Obama wants to increase National Science Foundation payoffs to "global warming"-fighting Climate-Gate scientists, possibly in hopes of preventing a  financial meltdown caused by his rising sea of debt.  His greenhouse gas-exhaling oration was billed as emphasizing jobs, but small businesses which could create them will be frozen in place.  This year's $1.6 Trillion Federal deficit will soak-up all available money, leaving loan-starved employers in the cold.  So if you're looking for a job, forget it.

With their constant up-and-down bobbing at Obama's gabathon, Rickety Reid and House speaker Pinky Pelosi may not have noticed his mention of jobs.  After it was over, they retreated to a secret Capitol bunker to plot further wrangling on Federal healthcare takeover, their main lust.  Apparently, Reid's pledge not to take up the ObamaScare bill until after Brown is seated applies only to the full 2,400-page version.  

The new plan is to completely nuke Senate rules by enacting health takeover a few pages at a time, with only 51 votes required.  All the upper-house nabobs need do is pass a few tattered scraps, plus a crowing title, send it to the White house for signing, and declare victory.  Remaining elements of the scheme can be added later by executive order, when nobody's watching.  

Also, there's lots of time before Feb. 11, when the Senate plans to validate Brown's passport and visa from the unrecognized territory of Massachusetts, to enact all manner of  other liberal bills he wouldn't vote for.  Appointee Kirk has his rubber-stamp at the ready.  There's energy tax-and-trade, climate change taxation, and other new taxes that joyously could be taken up before filibuster-proof hubris is humbled by the Bay State spoiler.

Who cares if Brown has paperwork, a Jan. 20 letter sent by Mass. secretary of state William Galvin to the Senate clerk declaring him unofficial winner of the rightful Kennedy seat.  The chamber's commissars don't recognize it.  Apparently, Reid's hopeful a few thousand late absentee ballots will throw victory to the Democrats.  After all, Brown only won by some 130,000 votes, so Dems can continue with business as usual.

It all seems like a bad movie, but what's the title?  "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", as re-written by Michael Moore?  Nah, it's not weird enough.  "Escape From Wrentham" lacks zest.  "BO Does DC"?  Too cheesy.  Maybe a truncated version of "Batman", with Reid as "Prune-Face", Pelosi as "Cat-Lady" and Obama as the "Joker".  Caped Brown could swoop down in the chamber's next session, capture Prune-Face and transport him to Gotham for trial in recently-opened court time, if he's not inked-in.

While Dem senators celebrate their self-extended power in Washington, Brown's been taking victory tours of the state, signing posters and photos of himself in his famous 2005 GMC Canyon, which just passed 201,000 miles.  Someone wrote "Go Scott!" in the dust on the side of the vehicle, which Brown plans to take with him to the capital some day as the first Republican senator from Mass. in 32 years.  He'll resign his state senate seat, finish Ted Kennedy's unexpired term as a commuter, and face re-election in 2012.  

Despite the Brownamania, some Mass. natives are growing restless.   "PAUL KIRK IS STILL VOTING IN THE SENATE!" thundered a commenter on the newspaper report.  "He will vote on anything Harry Reid tells him to". . .HE SHOULD NOT BE VOTING - THIS IS ANOTHER DEMOCRAT SLEAZE-FEST!" said another.  "Paul Kirk has no business being in office - he never received a SINGLE VOTE" echoed a third.

If outraged voters don't see their guy accepted soon in the Senate, they may take it out on other Democratic members of Congress from the state, in this year's elections.  Rep. Barney Frank is a likely ouster target.  Since 2007, he's been chairman of the House Financial Services Committee which oversees the nation's securities, banking, insurance and housing industries.  Critics have said he's largely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage lending spree which led to the current recession, but he denies this.

None of the voter unrest seems to bother Congressional bosses, who're as determined as ever to enact the President's ruinous program.  They've jammed the spending pedal to the floor so hard it's stuck tighter than a speeding Toyota.  It's up to passengers to save themselves from government-run airline security, and we-the-people must do the same on government-run government.  Unfortunately, the nation may already be past the point of no return on a headlong flight into bankruptcy and Obama/Hoover Depression.  And, America burns.

President Obama looks at the world through rose-colored teleprompters.  It showed in his address on the State of the Labor Unions, the only union he seems to care about.

  *  He saw a freeze on government spending that would halt escalating Federal deficits.  Others saw mandated high-level money squandering for the next three years, in recognition of the likelihood Republicans will gain control of the U.S. House, and possibly the Senate too, in this year's elections.  The goal is to make the GOP Congress unable to actually cut semi-permanent budget-busting funding cherished by Democrats.

  *  He saw increased spending on Federal support for education, notably former President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program.  Others saw a major push to indoctrinate the nation's school children in the Global Lying hoax, the moral need for Washington-run health care, and other Democratic/Socialist schemes.  To receive more Federal education funds, could schools be pressured into teaching such glorious advances?  By indirectly linking the spending hike to NCLF, the hope was Republicans would be tricked into supporting it.

*  He saw doling funds to small banks, tax breaks for small businesses that hire new workers or raise wages, subsidies for "green" jobs, and adoption of his energy taxation and "climate change" bills as the way to boost employment.  Others saw more Obama-claimed phantom workers, counter-productive government industrial planning, and realization of employers' worst nightmares of new taxation programs -- making true the very dreadnoughts that have iced private sector hiring for the past year.  So far, the only thing the President has frozen is jobs.    

In some ways, his rambling speech seemed like a clumsy sequel to "Avatar", a cash-spewing space-epic about a clash between evil human capitalists and noble mythological greenies.  Fantasy may sell, but the President's pink-tinted version isn't likely to draw well in Peoria.  The 3-D flick delivers the goods, but Obama's jobs plan is akin to a master tossing table scraps to hungry pups, while prospective U.S. employers are starved for red meat.  Such as, miraculous liberation from his tax and regulation assaults, credit-hogging, forced unionization, and enviro-nonsense.  Left alone, with the Federal meddlers vanquished, private business could save its own world.

Overall, the address was good news for Republicans.  Its combative bombast signaled the President plans to continue shoving his politically-suicidal Big Government agenda down the throat of a voter majority dead-set against it.  Whether Congressional Democrats will vote for their own election defeat is an open question.  If they resume working on the abysmal healthcare takeover legislation, a major counter-revolution is likely.  That 2,000-page monstrosity creates 1,000 new Federal bureaucrats per page, not the kind of jobs growth weary taxpayers have in mind.

When they elected President Obama, voters had no idea he would attempt to implement a socialist Utopia, as taught in many colleges.  For professors, though, socialism is just an academic game, a way to vent jealous rage at the faculty senate over lowly business execs reaping more cash than the campus elite, and maybe to sell a few socialist textbooks on the side.  Many probably laugh that politicians would take such tweaking seriously, but for the President and his vainglorious Democratic majority, pushing a failed economic theology apparently is more important than winning re-election.  And, America burns.

    

President Obama may emphasize jobs in his state of the union address, but there's one statistic he probably won't mention -- more than 29 million Americans lost jobs during his first year in office.

That's the grand total of initial unemployment claims filed nationwide during the weeks of Jan. 24, 2009, through Jan. 16, 2010.  It's the real, actual number of claims, not "seasonally adjusted", 29,003,159 to be precise, compiled by adding all the weekly figures reported by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Initial claims are widely covered in the media as a proxy for the number of jobs lost during a particular week, as newly fired or laid-off  workers apply for unemployment compensation.  But the huge number of employees swept out of work in the Year of Obama suggests the cumulative jobs problem is far worse than conveyed by small dribs of "official" data.

While some of the 29 million may have found new or part-time positions, others could have become discouraged and quit looking, at least temporarily.  Estimates of the number actually unemployed vary widely, from 15- to as high as 30-million.  If Obama wants to help these struggling Americans, it's getting late:

"THINGS ARE NOT LOOKING GOOD". . ."Obama should have concentrated on creating jobs in the first day that he took office.  This economy disaster is his failure as being a president." -- Jan. 22 comments on ABC-TV news website.

The 650,728 claims filed during the week ending Jan. 16 added to what many saw as a "bad week" for the President.  There were worries Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke would not be reconfirmed.  The apparent demise of ObamaScare and loss of the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority with the victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) couldn't have added to presidential cheer.  Nor could mutterings that the President's endorsement now was the "kiss of death" for Democratic candidates, as previously exemplified by gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey.

Unless there's a dramatic reversal of the giant jobs drain, the current "Great Recession" could result in lasting comparisons of President Obama with former GOP President Herbert Hoover, who's often blamed by Democrats with causing the "Great Depression".

The President's jobs efforts to date have been failures at best and destructive at worst.  Early in his administration he rammed a $787 billion "stimulus" package through Congress, with the stated goal of creating employment.  Most of the money turned out to be pork and slush-funding for political pandering.  By December, only $159 billion had been spent, with questionable results.  The White House said more than 640,000 jobs had been "created or saved", but on close examination the claim was smoke and mirrors.  Clintonesque re-definitions of "job" ensued, the most recent so self-serving it drew more laughs than Rodney Dangerfield, for whom lack of respect was a comic shtick.

To appear concerned, Obama showcased a December Jobs Summit featuring more than 100 hand-picked business leaders, union chiefs, academics, mayor and officials from nonprofit groups.  This followed a health care pinnacle at which doctor suits were handed out to attendees, for benefit of news cameras.  Maybe "Obama Creates Jobs" T-shirts were needed at the staged employment event.  "Nobody buys it anymore," said a viewer.

A lot of wind circulated in the White House but in the end, few new jobs were evident.  Most recent hiring has been in the public sector, or make-work created by borrowing enormous amounts of money.  It's been a fun ride in the Washington, D.C., area, but the rest of the nation has to pay.  Congress recently increased the national debt limit by trillions of dollars -- a jobs killer in the hinterlands, where suffering taxpayers dwell.

Last year's maneuverings were mostly for show, but when Democrats started losing elections big-time in liberal bastions, Obama got serious -- in his own way.  He hitched-up his teleprompters and ventured into fly-over territory, where he made a speech.  No more Mister Nice Guy, a new sheriff was in town.  He was all fired-up with newfound determination to make jobs.  Again, mere talk didn't seem to work.  Said one poster on the TV website, "Why doesn't Jimmy Obama stay in DC and try to be President instead of going on the road and campaigning!"

One problem: Obama's verbal thunder was delivered in Lorain, Ohio, which he last visited two years ago.   Then, he toured the National Gypsum Co., a drywall factory that was operating seven days a week, supposedly as a result of his wise economic policies.  Unfortunately, within two months the factory closed indefinitely.  "WOW, I sure hope Obama does not come and tour my business," one viewer responded.  

But for Obama, no failure is his own fault.  In his election-year swing, he resurrected traditional Bush-bashing:  the economic mess he inherited was too severe to be solved in one year, the former President was responsible for virtually all the nation's ills, etc.  And, by the way, Congress must re-appoint the Fed's Bernanke, a Bush holdover whose unique expertise is desperately needed to solve the financial crisis.  (Translation: he's been a good partner for Obama, and can be relied-on to take the President's marching orders.)   

After escaping the unemployment-ridden provinces, Obama crept back into his friendlier White House cave, where he dismissed a new threat bin Laden issued from his.  The lawyers would handle it.  He also noted Scott Brown voters of Massachusetts actually hadn't rejected his health takeover plan, a fact that escaped nearly everyone else.  Thank goodness we have such a sage President to point out our follies.  Don't think, just follow.  Tomorrow is another day, and another speech.  And, America burns.

"Is it just me or does anyone else get goose bumps reading blogs from other states wishing Scott Brown luck?" -- Post on Boston Herald blog, days before Brown's election.

Yes, Massachusetts, there's a new, brighter day.  But not in Washington.  It's midnight in the House and Senate chambers of doom and evil, an eerie lull before Democrats take a final plunge over the healthcare cliff, into the void.  Or, they could listen to the voters.

Abandoned, disillusioned, and frustrated, the People finally have a voice -- U.S. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).  Huh?  Yes, unlikely as it may seem, it's true.  Deal with it.   

He's "the 41st Senator", de-fanger of Al Franken, terminator of the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority.  He's also the "218th Representative" in the House, his feat inspiring enough backbone there hopefully to thwart Speaker Pelosi's late-night hair-curling.

And, he's turned President Obama into a lame-duck before he even made his first state-of-the-union address.  You don't win favor by retreating to a healthcare-bunker or legislating in secret, after promising C-SPAN.  Lately, Obama's hid in more caves than Osama.

By contrast, Brown worked tirelessly to meet the people, the old-fashioned way.  Little-known outside his home town Wrentham area, he criss-crossed the state in his old pickup, shaking hands and talking with voters.  He also won the online fundraising war from his Brown Brigade website, dominating Facebook -- where many conservatives changed their pics to the Scott Brown for Senate sign -- Twitter, and the blogosphere.  

So, how did Scott win?  By making the people of Mass feel good about themselves, for a change.  The strategy easily could work in other states where the GOP and conservatives have been intimidated by ugly media Political Correctness.  You know it's bad when people become "Independents" rather than admit party affiliation.  In the Bay State, no less than 51% sought this refuge.  Only 15% are die-hard Republicans, though that could change.

Think of the movie "The Wizard of Oz".  In that classic, young Dorothy and her three trembling allies confront the supposedly all-powerful wizard.   His image towers above them, and his formidable voice booms threateningly.  But Dorothy goes behind the screen and sees he's actually a tiny, frail old man yelling into a mike.  

That, folks, is the PC media -- the hoary Boston Globe and TV accomplices -- which have bullied Mass for decades into accepting liberal dominance as natural law.  It's the correct way to do things, as determined by the all-knowing elite.  Just as similar journalistic phalanxes have projected big authority from small minds all across the country.

Now imagine you're a Mass conservative or moderate.  You've been reviled and loathed all your life outside the commonwealth, for inflicting Barney Frank, John Kerry and a host of other leftist loonies on an unappreciative nation.  Then one day you read a blog in a more balanced rag, the Boston Herald, and see respect pouring in from dozens of other states --    

"I live in CT and wish I lived in Mass so I could vote for Scott!" . . ."Dittos from California, we are watching and excited for the people of Mass". . ."You go Scott Brown, the Northwest is all a-buzz with what is happening there". . .We got your back in Idaho". . ."THRILLED in Pa. . .let's make it a landslide!!". . ."The eyes of Texas are upon YOU, Massachusetts!". . ."Georgia supports Scott Brown! Go, Scott, go!!!". . ."Greetings from OHIO.  The whole country is watching and praying!"

Many downcast Bay Staters must have felt goose bumps.   "Finally," one responded, "MA people can redeem ourselves and show the rest of the country that we all don't fall in line with Kennedy/Kerry/Frank". . ."I live in the heart of inner city Boston. . .on January 20th I hope and pray to be able to wake up and say 'for the first time in my adult life -- I'm proud to be from Massachusetts!'"

Nascent state pride also surfaces in the posts:  "Boston is the very cradle of our freedom and liberty.  Our grandfathers fired the first shots of that struggle right here, and they were victorious. How fitting that it should be Massachusetts who steps up to protect that hard won freedom when it counts the very most, when anyone, anywhere in the country, including us, never believed it would happen again here". . ."In 1775 Massachusetts sent John Adams and Sam Adams to Congress and our nation was born.  Now we can send Scott Brown to Washington to reclaim our Government by the People". . ."2010 the 1st shot of a new REVOLUTION will be fired in Massachusetts.  GO SCOTT BROWN!!!!"

On the other hand, the Brown campaign may have created a new problem, candidate sign theft -- by supporters.  "On Scott Brown's website, he admits because of the huge demand for Brown signs, some Brown supporters are stealing lawn signs from other Brown supporters under the defense they live in a higher traffic neighborhood". . ."I signed up to volunteer for Scott Brown. Heck, all the bumper stickers are gone.  I want to hold a 'Brown for Senate' sign and be a part of the biggest upset in the history of politics". . . "Make your own signs if you can't get one, put his fliers in your car windows.  I haven't seen one Coakley sign in my city, it's all Brown". . ."Print up your own signs. Better than nothing. Save them after because they will be collector's items.". . ."I wrote Scott's name on my dirty car. . .in big letters".

There's lots of anxious soul-searching going on in Washington's midnight, the fateful interlude before decisions are handed down by Democratic bosses -- but it's probably dwarfed by the political awakening and realignment now going on across the nation.  For the first time in years, inspired by the example of Sen.-elect Brown, people are throwing off the binds of media-generated political correctness and realizing they've been conned.  

We'll probably find out before long whether enough Dems want to be re-elected to the chamber of doom to refute their Speaker.  And whether GOP challengers will come out in states where Dem Senate seats are available for the taking, just as Brown did in Mass.  And, America burns.

Democrats have agreed on a final version of their healthcare takeover bill, but they won't reveal what's in it until after Tuesday's special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.  Apparently, they're afraid voters there will turn against Dem candidate Martha Coakley, if they learn the sickening details.

A few specifics -- notably the exclusion of union members from a new tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans -- were leaked.  With that political bribe in the headlines, President Obama boarded tax-paid U.S. One Sunday and headed for the Bay State, where he hoped to persuade divided unionists not to help elect GOP candidate Scott Brown to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) unexpired term.

That could be tough, since the commonwealth's electorate doesn't respond well to political endorsements.  A Suffolk University poll found only 10% of key Independent voters "more likely" to vote for Coakley after her backing by Kennedy's widow and nephew, versus 31% who were actually "less likely".  Only 37% of Independents approved of the job Obama is doing.  We'll know Tuesday evening if the President failed on yet another fly-in selling job, after flubbing in Virginia and New Jersey.

Obama's rescue flight, maybe to the wrong place, marked a daunting week.  The poll showed Brown surging to a four-point lead in a race that could end the party's filibuster-proof Senate majority and jeopardize its socialist program.  And, with life-saving supplies rotting on fields at the airport instead of being delivered to the needy, there was growing concern the Haiti disaster had taken a Katrina-like turn.  Perhaps Obama should have jetted there, instead of handing the recovery job to two former Presidents.

But the President's forte is words, not deeds, and he's more fond of politicians than people.  On Wednesday, as the Haiti calamity unfolded, he was closeted in secret White House bargaining with Democratic congressional bosses on a problem he deemed really important, re-shuffling the 2,400-page Senate-House health "reform" bills into something resembling legitimate medicine.  It was a community organizer's dream.

Obama took his accustomed imperial position at a table's center, flanked by House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).  Senate majority boss Harry Reid (D-NV) and other senators set across from them.  White House don Rahm Emanuel and other aides took remaining seats.  Obama rarely left his chair, except to break away for an occasional phone call.  

The deciders of Americans' health fate pretty much went over the bulky documents page-by-page, or at least chunk-by-chunk, possibly hoping to fulfill Obama's "line-by-line" campaign pledge -- though that was to cut budget waste, not to add trillions in government spending.  Wednesday's talkfest lasted eight hours, followed by another on Thursday that ran well past midnight, and a Friday afternoon session.  

In the 2008 presidential election, Democrats blistered President George Bush over a film clip of him talking to a school class several minutes after being informed of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks.  A horrendous lack of concern!  Actually, Bush wanted to avoid scaring the children.  With thousands of Haitians likely to die unless help arrived, Obama moved effectively to avoid such clips coming back to haunt him.  He banned cameras from his meetings.  Secrecy has its benefits for a cold, public-be-damned politician.

Still, as discussions dragged on, even the complaisant liberal media must have wondered about Obama's lack of direct Haiti involvement.  We may never know if Spinmeisters were dispatched to push favorable comparisons of the administration's wondrous performance with George Bush's mythological Katrina failure.  But that would have been the Chicago way.

By Friday, as lesser officials wrestled with delivering aid to those dying with every passing minute, lawmakers congratulated themselves on being near an accord.  Surely, many U.S. lives would be saved by nuking the world's best health care system in favor of one ruled by tens of thousands of Federal bureaucrats running around in the streets of Washington.  With massive defections, few  doctors would be available for future foreign rescues, seemingly a minor concern.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) only would say negotiators were "pretty close."  But no further meetings were scheduled, indicating major conflicts had been resolved.  The White House refused to release details on the secret Final Solution, except to say there were "no final agreements and no overall package."  That meant Dems could make any changes they felt advantageous after the crucial Mass. voting, and claim the leaks had been incorrect.

If they lose in Mass., Democrats will face a challenge.  Should they hurriedly ram the healthcare mess through to adoption before Brown is sworn-in?  Nose-counts are probably underway to see if any Senate majority members might suddenly developed a conscience in such trauma.  In the House, a lot of Democrats likely are calculating what their career is worth, compared to giving Obama something to brag about in his state of the union address.  Pelosi doesn't worry, she's got her big bird to fly home in -- at least this year.  And, America burns.

 

Brown For President !! -- Boston blog post.

First, the Republican comeback tide hit New Jersey and Virginia.  Liberals and pundits dismissed the election of GOP governors as an off-year blip in swing states.  On Thursday, however, according to a Suffolk University/7News poll, the crimson wave swept over the bluest of all blue states, Massachusetts --

"Likely voters in the Bay State have turned expectations upside down as Republican State Sen. Scott Brown (50 percent) now leads Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley (46 percent) in the race to be the next U.S. senator from Massachusetts," said the university's Political Research Center.  “He is attracting independent support by a wide margin and even winning some Democrats who won’t vote the party line this time.”

The news generated nearly a thousand comments on the Boston Herald blog:  "There is definitely electricity in MA for Scott Brown". . ."Once again America will hear the shot that started a revolution". . ."I'm not shocked by this.  I'm voting for Brown and so are all my friends, most of whom are Democrats". . ."Let's cover up all the Massachusetts blue with BROWN!". . ."The people are rising against the oppressor". . ."United we stand.  One for all and All for one". . ."I'm so happy I got nothing to post!"

Amid the jubilation was introspection:  "As a Democrat, I am pleased with this story. Coakley has turned her back on the working class consumers". . ."Brown is basically what a moderate Democrat was like in the 70's and 80's.  If he does win it will be a clear message that Democrats and Independents are tired of business as usual". . ."As a long time democrat, I'm making the switch for this election.  Let's be clear - I'm not a Republican in a political sense - but I want to send a clear message to the Democratic machine that we're not taking this c--p any longer". . ."I will vote for Scott Brown, which is probably uncharacteristic because I am a white, gay, Catholic man who doesn't believe in abortion, is very fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

The statewide survey of 500 Mass. registered voters was conducted Jan. 11-13, with an error margin of +/- 4.38 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence.  Some findings:

    * Among men, Brown led Coakley 55 percent to 41 percent but trailed among women 50 percent to 45 percent.

    * Seventy-eight percent of registered Democrats preferred Coakley, while 91 percent of registered Republicans and 65 percent of independents favored Brown.

    * Brown led in most areas of the state, except Suffolk County, where Coakley crushed Brown 69 percent to 31 percent.

    * Brown (57 percent favorable to 19 percent unfavorable) was viewed more positively than Coakley (49 percent favorable to 41 percent unfavorable).  

But is the stunning poll accurate?  Said a poster on the newspaper blog: "Suffolk University is full of marginal hacks that have been working for Coakley.  So if (its) poll says that Brown is ahead, then that is news."  Another pointed out, "Suffolk was the only poll in the country that called NH correctly last year."

Significantly, only 1% of those polled were Undecided, so the longtime Democratic pol may have a difficult time adding voters, even with near-saturation negative TV ads.  One viewer of the WHDS-TV news at 4 pm counted 15 political ads.  Ten were attacks from Coakley, all about Cheney, Bush and Palin.  "I thought she was running against Brown," the viewer complained.  "Meanwhile the five ads Brown ran talked about the issues."

The attacks on Brown could have a reverse impact:  "If Coakley runs her negative ads tonight as many times as she did last night, I'm going to spend the weekend going door to door for Scott Brown and I'm a union man," said a post.

New support for Coakley could come from backers of Joseph L. Kennedy, a Libertarian-leaning independent who gained 3% endorsement among those polled.  But at least one commenter had a different view:  "I think Joe Kennedy will hurt Martha more then Brown. . .There will be a percentage of democrats that will show up at the poll and see the name Kennedy on the ballot and vote for him thinking he's a relative. . .I bet at least 5% of potential Martha voters will make that mistake and vote for Kennedy."

An independent poster added, "I consider myself to be a libertarian.  I would love it if Joe Kennedy won the election -- but let's face it, it's just not going to happen.  Let's be real and vote for the lesser evil -- Scott Brown."

Overall, the outpouring of posts supported the poll's finding of a new Bay State coalition that's shucking traditional partisanship to halt the Obama big-spending, jobs-destroying agenda.  If the President "can't wait" to enact his program, Brown backers are even more eager to strike a massive blow against it on Tuesday.  

Their enthusiasm was evident:  "Brown! Brown! Brown! Brown! WHOOPEE!!!"; "Beam me up, Scotty!"; "OMG I just peed my pants in happiness";  "We are saying no to power and corruption, and I'm on cloud nine!"; "This news calls for a group Snoopy dance!"  But some cautioned: "I'm not prepared to do a happy dance just yet but I do have my dancing shoes dusted off."; "Free at last, free at last, good God almighty, free at last - I hope."

So, the surge rolls on.  "Martha, that rumble you are now hearing is the distant and rapidly approaching Voice of the People. . .rising to a great crescendo. . .a Tsunami.  The people shouting that We Are Coming to take back our Senate Seat."  Another: "I hope it's a tidal wave that lasts right through November of this year!"  

Others worry about Democrats deploying SEIU thugs to steal the election.  "If this were any other place I'd be ecstatic," warned a poster.  "But this is Massachusetts and, as we all know, all the cemeteries vote Democratic."  And, "There is now talk of some shenanigans going on like robo calls to registered dems indicating based on their registration they MUST vote dem, and also some hassling going on to get an absentee ballot. Both appear to be targeting the elderly. . ."  And, "The Democrats are already stuffing the absentee ballots so we have to not only win but get ahead of the total absentee ballots."

President John F. Kennedy once said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."  It's good economic advice, but watery depths ended the Presidential ambitions of his late brother, Sen. Ted Kennedy.  The ghost of Chappaquiddick may linger still, as the rising GOP wave threatens to drown the hopes of Ted's would-be Democratic successor.

Perhaps Shakespeare said it best, in Julius Caesar: "There is a tide in the affairs of men./Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;. . .On such a full sea are we now afloat,/And we must take the current when it serves,/Or lose our ventures."  And, America burns. 

On July 24, 2008, during a CNN/YouTube debate, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked, "Would you be willing to meet separately, WITHOUT PRECONDITION, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"  

Obama replied, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this [Bush] administration -- is ridiculous."

On Jan. 12, 2010, North Korea proposed that peace talks be started to formally end the Korean War, which waged between North Korea and South Korea (and foreign interveners) during 1950-53.  Hostilities ended in a cease-fire, but a technical state of war still exists.  The North's peace initiative seemed like an ideal opportunity for President Obama to implement his campaign promise, and show that his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 was not mere idolatry.  Ending sixty years of conflict would be a significant accomplishment.

But Obama declined the opportunity.  Though normally a headline-hog, he sent a State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, before the microphones in Washington to brush off the North's call.  That way there couldn't be future news-clips of the President's switch. Crowley urged North Korea to return to six-nation disarmament talks that it abandoned last year "and then we can begin to march down the list of issues that we have."  That sounded embarrassingly like Bush administration "punishment", which the peace hero had pledged to end.

Unfortunately, the North wouldn't go for it.  Returning to those negotiations would hinge on building better relations with the United States, including signing a peace treaty.  Plus, international sanctions against the maverick nuclear nation must be lifted.  The "you-first" standoff left both sides demanding preconditions before they'd even talk about peace.

When Obama accepted his peace prize on Dec. 10 last year at a ceremony in Oslo, Norway, he acknowledged "my accomplishments are slight" compared with some past recipients, and that unrecognized millions who have fought for peace and justice are "far more deserving of this honor than I."  He also conceded lacking "a definitive solution to the problems of war."  But, "What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require. . .vision, hard work, and persistence. . .And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."  

Where's the Vision in instant, robotic rejection of the North's first offer of peace in the 60 years since the war began?  What New Ways of thinking are shown in a glowering stand-off, with both sides waiting to see who flinches first?  If peace is Imperative, why refuse to even talk about it?  The President took months deciding on a plan for war, but can't spend as much as a day preparing a plan for peace?

Admittedly, North Korea is a closed, secretive dictatorship that's developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could be used to attack the U.S.  When he rejected the peace initiative, President Obama was engaged in closed, secretive meetings with Democratic congressional dictators over their plan to nuke the nation's health care system.  

Perhaps it was a wise allocation of Presidential time to what he feels is the greater concern.  But it says something about Obamacare if it's viewed as a worse threat than nuclear attack by a foreign nation on, say, San Francisco.  Isn't saving that city more important than coddling Nancy Pelosi, who's only thinking of her ill-reputed plan?

President Obama should re-think his reflexive "No!" response to peace on the Korean peninsula.  At least make an attempt to earn the Nobel prize by talking with this dangerous adversary.  Maybe they would agree to separate but simultaneous talks on peace and disarmament.  What's to lose?  Bragging rights to not "caving-in" on their peace offer?  Wouldn't a disarmament pact be easier to achieve if there's no state of war?

Maybe the Nobel guys should ask for a refund of the $1 million cash award they bestowed on Obama, in addition to his prize.  What happened to it, anyway?  Did he just add it to his stash?  Or did his spouse, Michelle, have other plans?  She bought a $6,000 black alligator clutch-purse by Italian fashion designer VBH last July.  Just the thing for carrying money on a shopping excursion.  

Oh, wait, the White House says the clutch was merely an $875 patent leather version.  And the President pledged the entire award to charity.  Doesn't it make you feel good to know our messianic President and spouse are so kind to the common folk?  And so, America burns.