Here are some great suggestions for an alternative response Obama could have used for Afganistan (we like #10):

1. Dedicate a round of golf to the people of Afghanistan. 

2. Send Michelle for a symbolic vacation to Jalalabad. 

3. Ask the Afghans if they'd like the Russians back instead. 

4. Head to a local Afghan restaurant and bow to the wait staff. 

5. Offer to make Afghanistan's heroin 'The Official Heroin of the United States.' 

6. Give Afghan children a permanent exemption from Michelle's 'Let's Move' school lunch offerings. 

7. Provide unlimited, free doses of Prozac to the entire adult population of Afghanistan. 

8. Change the lyrics of O Tannenbaum to O Taliban. 

9. Set up a program to provide virgins to Afghan men who refuse to commit suicide bombings. 

10. Demand an apology from Afghanistan for the more than 1,800 U.S. forces killed since the start of the war."

(Thanks to White House Dossier)

We keep wondering why the Obama administration would pursue policies detrimental to job creation and economic recovery. In reading some documents from the past we think maybe we found the answer in FDR's "Annual Address to Congress", January 11, 1944: 

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." 

Perhaps this is what he meant when he spoke of "fundamentally transforming America"?

Remember this quote from the Zero Administration?:

"...the White House has worked to get off the defensive over high gasoline prices, insisting that Obama has done everything he can to bring those costs down."  

We recently chronicled some of the ways Obama has worked to keep gas prices escalating, and now this, from the Washington Examiner:

"President Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists"


In news that will make the Progressives cringe, it seems that at least one truism is being proven with facts: More Guns = Less Crime. It seems that despite all of the demonization of guns coming from the left for the last 30+ years, an increase in gun ownership actually does help deter crime! From the Daily Caller: 

"Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI.
The FBI recently released its Crime in The United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders — which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 — have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.

At the same time that firearms murders were dropping, gun sales were surging. In 2009, FBI background checks for guns increased by 30 percent over the previous year, while firearms sales in large retail outlets increased by almost 40 percent. The number of applications for concealed carry permits jumped across the country as well."

If We are to believe the anti-gun lobby, America should be experiencing massive increases in gun crimes and murders, but it just isn't happening. In fact just the opposite is occurring.

Hmmm...I wonder if they are right about the cost of healthcare as well?

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/#ixzz1nbgHSbiM

The "President" responded to the serf's complaints about high gas prices today in Florida:
"Only in politics do people root for bad news and they greet bad news so enthusiastically," he said (speaking about Republicans) in a combative speech at the University of Miami. "You pay more, and they're licking their chops."
"The defiant rhetoric came after days in which the White House has worked to get off the defensive over high gasoline prices, insisting that Obama has done everything he can to bring those costs down." 

Uh, would that be things like rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline? A project that would not only provide millions of barrels of oil to the US market, but 
"...would put 13,000 people to work building the pipeline and 118,000 spin-off jobs “through increased business for local goods and service providers.” - Forbes, 1/28/12

Or maybe he means shutting down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico?
"After the BP oil spill, Obama shut down all offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, idling 78,000 jobs and cutting off billions of dollars of tax revenue to state and local governments in the Gulf Coast region.
After U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman found the Gulf moratorium without factual basis, Obama lifted it, granted no permits, then reinstated the same moratorium.  The same judge then found the second moratorium illegal and held the administration in contempt of court for ignoring the first order." 

He wants us to look at his words, despite his actions... 
"Obama said there were "no quick fixes" and "no silver bullets" to solve the situation and called for a "sustained, all-of-the-above" approach to develop domestic energy..."

...but it's not just oil Obama hates:

"A recent study by the American Consumer Institute concludes that coal, natural gas, nuclear, transmission infrastructure, and even renewables were among 351 energy projects delayed or canceled by Obama.  These projects represented 1.9 million jobs and an investment of $1.1 trillion." - HumanEvents.com

The "Great Leader" continued:
"Obama assured Americans that he feels their pain, saying the rise in gas prices "hurts everybody" and "means you've got to find even more room in a budget that was already tight."

Well, not HIS budget of course. Remember that Michelle and the girls are off skiing in Aspen, only a few short weeks after returning from holiday in Hawaii. In Obama's Amerika it's only the little people who suffer.

Holidays in Paradise!
Whew, vacationing is SO tiring...
Just to keep all this in perspective, let's go all the way back to....2008.

Just wait until summer...
Is Thomas Paine still alive?

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. 

Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Washington D.C., with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

Bet you can't spot the one small edit we made!

Babs Boxer, Democrat, California, crawled out of her hole today to add her shrill voice to those who would trample the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out that for about 15 percent of women, birth control pills are used to treat endometriosis and other conditions.

"It's medicine and women deserve their medicine," she said.

Oh, well why didn't you say so! Of course we'll ignore the Constitution and force religious institutions to do your bidding! Because we all know you are much smarter than Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or James Madison!

Another fool, this time from Wisconsin, spoke up to add this gem:

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said the church "can't impose its religious views on people and whether they can have health care."

Right...how dare the church try to impose its beliefs on people...that's the job of the Progressives in Congress! 

Lost in the explanation was any mention that 90% of health care plans cover contraception, and that they are readily available via prescription from a woman's doctor. And, God forbid, (pun intended), people can even go and pay for them with (gasp!) cash.

Also lost is the fact that nobody, not even the evil Republicans, is saying that people shouldn't have access to contraception, or contraceptive medicines used to treat other ailments. What we are saying is that religious organizations should not be forced to provide anything that is contrary to their religious doctrine or teachings. If I recall, that is one of the primary reasons our ancestors got on those rickety old sailboats to come here in the first place! 

Some have clearer thinking:
"The issue is not contraception, said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., but "whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be done. It's that simple. And if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results."

Even some Democrats have clarity:
"Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to religious freedoms."

Obama has really stepped in it this time. The veil is lifted, the curtain pulled back to reveal his true strategy, that of Government domination.

So NOW we know what "Fundamental Transformation" looks like.

Thinks she's smarter than the Founders
Wow, that was fast!

The Food Nazis stepped up their attack on our diet this week with a new scathing report about how salt is bad for us, and the government must step in to "help" us.

From the Centers for Disease Control:"For American Heart Month, the February edition of CDC Vital Signs focuses on the amount of sodium in Americans' diets and what we can do to reduce it. Too much sodium increases a person's risk for high blood pressure. 

Except when it doesn't:
From the LA Times - "High salt consumption not dangerous, new European study finds"

May 03, 2011 By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times

"Low levels of salt consumption are associated with a higher rate of cardiovascular disease and deaths, European researchers reported Tuesday...the
  University of Leuven in Belgium studied 2,856 people who did not have hypertension or cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the study. The group was then divided into thirds based on salt excretion and monitored for as long as 7.9 years. No association between salt intake and hypertension was observed.
Again from the Centers for Disease control:
Most of the sodium we eat comes from processed foods and foods prepared in restaurants. Sodium is already part of processed foods and cannot be removed. Learn what you can do to reduce sodium in your diet.

Highlights from the report-
  • About 90% of Americans eat more sodium than is recommended for a healthy diet.
  • Reducing the sodium Americans eat by 1,200 mg per day on average could save up to $20 billion a year in medical costs. 
  • Types of foods matter—More than 40% of sodium comes from the following 10 types of foods: breads and rolls, cold cuts and cured meats such as deli or packaged ham or turkey, pizza, fresh and processed poultry, soups, sandwiches such as cheeseburgers, cheese, pasta dishes, meat mixed dishes such as meat loaf with tomato sauce, and snacks such as chips, pretzels, and popcorn.
Notice the list of foods above. It won't take long for the attacks to begin on those specific foods. But don't worry, your federal bureaucracy in Washington D.C. is here to help:

"The Federal government is:What could go wrong? They are from the government, and are here to help.

You might have heard the news today that a “researcher” at UCSF wants to severely restrict the use of sugar in our food and beverages. We have been waiting for the first shoe to drop since Obamacare was passed in 2009, and now it has.

One of the chief dangers of government run healthcare is that they will take an interest in everything you do and everything you consume. You see, if I am responsible for paying for your healthcare, there is no way I would let you have a poor diet, or would let you participate in risky activities. Because with the government running things it is no longer you who are responsible for your health but all of us.This basic concept was absent from most of the lively debate about Obamacare when it took place. From the story:

“A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic the the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).”

So now, as step number one on the way to the all encompassing nanny-state, a researcher in San Francisco, no surprise there, says that he thinks sugar is so bad for us they: 

“...propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.”

It then makes perfect sense that rather than let everyone make their own decisions about what to eat and drink, because we all see how that turned out, the government should step in and decide for you. Because we are all, of course, nothing but children to be taken care of by our betters in Washington, D.C.

If you are curious about where this leads look no further than New York City, that shining example of paternalism led by Papa Mike Bloomberg, who cares SO much for his serfs, I mean citizens, he has implemented a ban on trans fats, and is pushing a ban on the use of salt in restaurants. He also pushed for a ban on buying soda with food stamps.

As the nations do-gooders get into full swing, expect to see bans on butter, meat and cheese, as well as on various “unhealthy” or risky activities like skiing, sky diving, riding motorcycles, and scuba diving.

Of course, they will ignore the number one killer of most people in the 20th century - their own governments.

Yes, one of the 99% lives here...
We all know that Hollywood loves a protest movement. Some have come out in support of the “Occupy” protests. We would call this move “hypocritical” at best, as the following is a list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million
2. Jay-Z - $450 million
3. David Letterman - $400 million
 (tie) Stephen King - $400 million
5. Russell Simmons - $325 million
6. Sean Lennon - $200 million
7. Mike Myers - $175 million
8. George Clooney - $160 million
9. Brad Pitt - $150 million
 (tie) Don King - $150 million
11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million
12. Jane Fonda - $120 million
 (tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million
14. Al Gore - $100 million
15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million
 (tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million
17. Kanye West - $70 million
 (tie) Dan Rather - $70 million
19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million
 (tie) Matt Damon - $65 million
21. Tom Morello - $60 million
  (tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million
23. Katy Perry - $55 million
24. Michael Moore - $50 million
  (tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

Total: $4.1 billion

What’s even more enlightening is that there are a number of foreign-born celebrities on this list.

Roseanne Barr inadvertently called for 13 of her fellow multi-millionaire celebrities to die when she said this:

“…I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded.''

Our favorite loathsome celebrity, Alec Baldwin, supports the Occupy movement while at the same time getting paid to endorse Capital One Bank.