I found this at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System, who had stolen it…so I stole it too:

A guy goes into a bar and there is a robot bartender.

The robot says, “What will you have?”

The guy says “Martini.”

The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man,

“What’s your IQ?”

The guy says, “168.”

The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and medical technology.

The guy leaves, but he is curious, so he goes back into the bar.

The robot bartender says, “What will you have?”

The guy says, “Martini”.

Again, the robot makes a great martini, gives it to the man and says, “What’s your IQ?”

The guy says, “100.”

The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time.

He goes back into the bar.

The robot says, “What will you have?”

The guy says, “Martini”, and the robot brings him another great martini.

The robot then says, “What’s your IQ?”

The guy says, “Uh, about 50.”

The robot leans in real close and says, “So… you people still happy you voted for Obama?”

It’s easy to assume the unions are so vocal, and physical, proponents of the Democrat Health Care plan because they believe the issue is important and they want it to succeed. It’s even logical to assume they are fighting because the are political allies of the Democrat party and share the same goals.

However, when you look at the health care bill they are stomping people over, you see the real reason they are out in force.

They get paid $10 billion if it passes:

Antilabor forces say it’s welfare for the UAW and Democrats’ union allies. Labor supporters say it falls short of what’s needed as tens of thousands of union members are pushed into early retirement as employers cut back health care coverage.

They’re both talking about a $10-billion provision tucked deep inside thousands of pages of health care overhaul bills that could help the UAW’s retiree health-care plan and other union-backed plans.

It would see the government — at least temporarily — pay 80 cents on the dollar to corporate and union insurance plans for claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for retirees age 55 to 64.

Follow the money. Follow the money. Follow the money.

Ed Morrissey writes:

That’s explicitly a bailout. It comes on the heels of tens of billions of dollars committed to GM and Chrysler, as well as politically-motivated bankruptcies that violated the rights of senior creditors in favor of the unions. The unions have overcommitted and underresourced their health plans, and now Congress wants to surreptitiously bail them out from bankruptcy — all while making them more or less immune from the restrictions in the rest of the bill.

That $10,000,000,000 bailout certainly gives the unions a big incentive to crack heads and intimidate people into retreat on ObamaCare, doesn’t it? That’s the granddaddy of all Astroturfing efforts.

Stephan Tawney says:

We’ve entered into a new era of corruption, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in Washington in recent memory. At least politicians had the decency to pretend that they weren’t being corrupt in the past. Obama and his Congressional allies really don’t even care about whether Americans see their money going to fund liberal allies and pet projects. Mainly because they don’t care what the American people think about anything anymore.

The Commander-in-Thug and his left-wing allies are rapidly forming an oligarchy under our noses.

What say you?

The so-called economist Paul Krugman is a card carrying member of the political left and, in my humble opinion, a socialist. He is also a liar of the first order, a deceiver who pushes the public option, knowing it will lead to single payer, the ultimate goal of the leftists in America.

Here’s Krugman in 2007 explaining that the public option will lead to single payer:

However, these days, he’s singing a different tune:

Barney Frank says the same thing. Jan Schakowsky says it will destroy the private insurance industry.

How many of these leftists have to tell the truth before the public understands?

Hat Tip: Hot Air

I don’t really have much to say. I would like to note the passing of the Lion of the Senate, however. Ted Kennedy is dead. As Drudge writes, Camelot has ended:

U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, a towering figure in the Democratic Party who took the helm of one of America’s most fabled political families after two older brothers were assassinated, died at age 77, his family said.

Kennedy had brain cancer, which was diagnosed in May 2008. He will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington, near this graves of his brothers President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy.

He was one of the most influential and longest-serving senators in U.S. history, a liberal standard-bearer who recovered politically from a string of personal scandals to become known as a consummate congressional dealmaker.

Kennedy’s death marked the twilight of a political dynasty and dealt a blow to Democrats who lost their chief champion of President Barack Obama’s call for an overhaul of the healthcare system.

Is that what it will come down to? A funeral that turns into a political rally, a renewed call for socialized medicine? For those that remember the Wellstone funeral, you know it isn’t below the Democrats to turn a memorial into something more than a memorial.

Pelosi is already using it:

vowed Wednesday to push through embattled health reform legislation this year following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, who called the effort “the cause of my life”.

“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Sen. Robert Byrd is also politicizing the death, calling for the heath care reform bill to be named after Kennedy:

In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.

Never let a crisis to go waste…or the death of a political legend, liberal icon and colleague.

That is one dangerous looking mob of political gangsters. 

Ann Althouse asked a great question today regarding Obama’s reading list while on vacation. Supposedly he’ll be reading all of these this week:

• The Way Home by George Pelecanos, a crime thriller based in Washington;
•  Lush Life by Richard Price, a story of race and class set in New York’s Lower East Side;
• Tom Friedman’s Hot, Flat, and Crowded, on the benefits to America of an environmental revolution;
•  John Adams by David McCullough;
• Plainsong by Kent Haruf, a drama about the life of eight different characters living in a Colorado prairie community.

The paperback version of John Adams is 768 pages long. Am I really supposed to believe that he is reading all of these books?

Anyway, Ann wondered, “If you could pick a book for Obama to read — actually read — what book would you pick?”

Great question. “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith comes to mind. “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, perhaps.

I’m currently reading “The Forgotten Man” so that one makes the list also.

But if I only had one, it would have to be “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman.

How about you?

As if the compassion shown from Scotland wasn’t enough lunacy from Europe, Ireland joins the party. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has decreed the following phrases are officially racist and/or sexist:

· “whiter than white”

· “gentleman’s agreement”

· “black mark”

· “right-hand man”

· “black day”

No, I’m not kidding:

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules.

It points out that certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.

The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable.

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

Advice issued by the South West Regional Development Agency states: “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white.

I’m sure all of these products are officially banned in the countries of hyper-sensitivity.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to go to court, and it wants the Federal Government to go with it.

The case? Anthropogenic climate change:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" — complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."

I applaud the efforts of the Chamber, and hope they push this until it happens. The myth of climate change needs to be exposed on a bigger stage. This would be a fantastic way of doing it.

I offer my library of videos as evidence:

Anything else I can do, just say the word.

Imagine you are 72 and living in a secluded area. A 22 year old man, who has broken into your house before, is giving it another go, this time with help.

What do you do?

If you are R.C. Soles, you put a pill in the punk:

Attorney Joe Cheshire said Monday that Soles used a pistol to shoot the 22-year-old at his home and the incident was recorded by security cameras on the senator’s property.

Authorities say Soles shot Kyle Blackburn Sunday night when he and another man tried to kick in the door of Soles’ secluded home. Nobody has been charged.

Blackburn was listed Monday in fair condition at a South Carolina hospital.

Soles has had a series of confrontations with former law clients in the past two years. He called for help from local police at least nine times to ward off men who were charged with trespassing.

There are examples of this kind of self defense every day. A great place to keep track of them is on Clayton Cramer’s Gun Self Defense Blog. I know the title’s kind of deceptive, but trust me…it’s about the use of guns for self defense.

As I have noted before, the Democrats health care plan is based on the model instituted in Massachusetts. The same model that has helped created the highest health care costs has now created the highest health insurance premiums in the country:

The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent.

In the spirit of Monk, here’s what happened:

The state of Massachusetts thought it should meddle in the free market to correct the problems other meddling had created. So they set up a “Connector” which, according to the Cato Institute:

is not actually an insurer. Rather, it is designed to allow individuals and workers in small companies to take advantage of the economies of scale, both in terms of administration and risk pooling, which are currently enjoyed by large employers. Multiple employers are able to pay into the Connector on behalf of a single employee. And, most importantly, the Connector would allow workers to use pretax dollars to purchase individual insurance. That would make insurance personal and portable, rather than tied to an employer-all very desirable things.

The Connector is governed by a board. This governing body has the power to say what insurance providers in the state have to cover. This nonsense has expensive results:

…the Connector’s board has seen itself as a combination of the state legislature and the insurance commissioner, adding a host of new regulations and mandates.

For example, the Connector’s governing board has decreed that by January 2009, no one in the state will be allowed to have insurance with more than a $2,000 deductible or total out-of-pocket costs of more than $5,000. In addition, every policy in the state will be required to phase in coverage of prescription drugs, a move that could add 5–15 percent to the cost of insurance plans. A move to require dental coverage barely failed to pass the board, and the dentists-along with several other provider groups-have not given up the effort to force their inclusion. This comes on top of the 40 mandated benefits that the state had previously required, ranging from in vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.

When this goes national, you can be guaranteed employers will simply refuse to cover health insurance and leave their employees to fend for themselves. The public option will be the cheapest, and eventually the most successful policy on the market.

What do you think will happen to the other insurance companies? Jan Schakowsky knows:

It will put the private insurance industry out of business.

Now you know why I, and so many others, am against this. The answer doesn’t lie in more government. It rarely does.

I have been fairly silent on the whole terrorist shown compassion and set free to die in Libya thing, mainly because everyone else has been so vocal on it.  But as I was browsing my usual haunts for blog content, I saw a link which really intrigued me.

It went to this article, where the Scottish justice minister who set the dog Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi free lamented that Libya broke it’s word:

"Assurances had been given by the Libyan government that any return would be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion," he said, defending his decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi who was given a hero’s welcome in Tripoli.

"It is a matter of great regret that Mr. al-Megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner," he added, before being questioned by lawmakers over the release which has triggered fury in the United States.

To me, this really illustrates the lack of insight involved in this whole decision.  The justice minister believed that Moamer Kadhafi, or Gadhafi (whatever, who cares) was an honorable man who could be trusted.

These ignorant men are playing a dangerous game with dangerous men and they believe they will win because they are compassionate.  The problem is what they see as compassion, the militant Islamist sees as weakness.

The United Kingdom didn’t help itself, or the free world, with this act of compassion.  They simply made us look like a better target.

Here’s a bit from my article today over at the American Issues Project:

The national debt is already $11.7 trillion. Obama’s budget deficit, according to the administration, is already $1.5 trillion. The health care overhaul would add another trillion to it. Because of the massive debt and the deficit, the Federal Reserve is having a hard time unloading the debt. Actually, they can’t unload the debt, so they are printing money to buy it. And rather than looking for ways to lower the debt, the administration is looking to raise the debt limit.

It may be borderline conspiracy theory, but one has to wonder if the goal here isn’t reforming health care but reforming America. Obama is already on record as advocating the redistribution of wealth, which was the ultimate goal of Cloward and Piven. How can increasing the national debt limit, $1.5 trillion dollar budget deficits, and another $9 trillion in debt do anything but strain the very foundation of our economic system?

Read the rest here.