Obama Having Second Thoughts About Zalaya Rescue!

(Oct. 13, Washington) In an unscheduled Rose Garden appearance early this morning, President Obama announced that he is having second thoughts about his decision to name Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the newly-created Executive Branch post of “Czar Of All Czars”.

Ex-Honduran president Zelaya is scheduled to occupy Vice-president Cheney’s old west-wing office. “Where I can keep an eye on him,” President Obama said. “We wouldn’t want anything to happen to Jose before he has a chance to re-assume the presidential office in Tegucigalpa.

"In the meantime,” the President said, “he will be in charge of all the White House czars, a sort of “capo di tutti capi” as Vice President Joe Biden put it. “His duties have not yet been defined,” the President continued. “We are still trying to come to terms with Manny’s insistence on carrying a side arm. Seeing that six-gun hanging there on his hip is freaking out the White House staff.”

When pressed by reporters to identify the most serious international relations problem that could develop because of his (President Obama’s) rescue of the Latin American president, Mr. Obama replied, “He wants to sleep on the floor by his desk. He brought a couple of smelly blankets and a straw mat, and around five P.M. he spreads them out on the floor behind Cheney's old Halliburton desk and settles in. My worst fear is that during the night, he’ll pick up a call from Putin or from Ahmad, or become startled by the cleaning crew and start shooting that cannon. The cleaning staff is nearly all Black, you know, and they spook easily. I’m beginning to regret that I rescued him at all.” He added. “I probably should have selected someone less controversial for the post. Like Jim McGreevy, or Eliot Spitzer.”

de Tocqueville's America . . .NOT

In her exciting blog, my perceptive and clever friend, Rosita (http://rositatheprolesnastylittlebloggingproblem.wordpress.com/) laments the loss of a free press in our land. She could not find a remedy in de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", for he complains that 'as men become more alike, the rules of advancement become more rigid, and advancement slows.' But through no fault of his own, de Tocqueville missed something; the America he saw was not our America.

And thank God for it. Otherwise we'd be one big Canada. (Perish the thought!) In fact, he was blessed to live at a time when men had brains in their heads.

Tocqueville’s book was written when most men’s lives were guided by doctrine and supported by principle. Honor was the second of these, after God and before country. Why? Because that’s what they were taught in childhood by their parents and later in their formal education. If, by reason of birth or condition, formal education was wanting, example was plentiful and defiance punished. Was social injustice a part of that long-ago society? Beyond doubt. Did its presence, like today’s self-styled and witless reformers assert, invalidate America’s history? Is there a Washington or a Jefferson alive anywhere in the world today? Hello!
Someone in my family attended the University of South Carolina in Columbia. When the Civil War broke out, the entire student body, seventy-five young men in all, volunteered for service in the Confederate Army. In today’s America, the only time such unanimity of purpose might be evident among our university airheads is under the conditions of a rock concert or an anti-war protest. And besides social agitation and narcissism, there wouldn’t otherwise be the faintest consideration of principle, steadfastness or conviction in their weak little minds, saying nothing of honor.
They tell us that time marches on and cultural values change. What culture? I say as the twig is bent so grows the tree. Today’s America is lost, and absent catastrophic trial, will never again know honor, purpose or patriotic fervor.
Too bad for us.

BLAMING DOCTORS - OR AT LEAST BUSH! .....ANYWAY, SOMEBODY ELSE.

Here's an interesting quote today from our Glorious Leader:

"Partisan attempts to stall or block healthcare reform are unacceptable, especially as rising costs prevent small businesses from creating new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy remains fragile," President Barack Obama said Saturday.

"Rising healthcare costs are undermining our businesses, exploding our deficits, and costing our nation more jobs with each passing month," Obama said in his weekly radio address.

(Just so you know - unemployment, especially among young people ages 17 to 24 is higher than ever before in our history. This couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Congress just increased the minimum wage again, could it?

$7.25 an hour for a kid to come in after school to sweep out the store or load some shelves? Fuggedaboudit!)

Do you see the game here? Despite his promises that he would reduce unemployment by 3 million new jobs in his first year in office, under Obama, unemployment numbers are rising every month. In September they reached 9.8%, the highest number of unemployed Americans in 26 years.

The Chicago mobsters in the White House must have sat up all night on this one, but Obama and his consiglieri found a way to blame it on somebody else - he's going to blame rising unemployment on our healthcare system!

Hey! He can bring Bush into it and make him part of this problem too! After all, wasn't our horrible health care system in effect during Bush's term? Maybe our Dear and Glorious Leader thought this up on his million-dollar ride over to Copenhagen on Air Force One to use his unparalleled salesmanship on the stubborn fools who run the Olympic Committee and feel like they should give the southern hemisphere a chance, given that an Olympic event has never been held there and Brazil is becoming a major player in the world's economy. too bad. Those half-empty slums of Valerie Jarrett's might have made a good place for a stadium. Oh, well. There's always the winter olympics.

Mmm - mmm - mmm! Barack looks like an ass! Mmm - mmm - mmm . . . .

Oh. and you know what? All those wonderful statistics from other countries on infant mortality, and how it's so much better in other countries than it is in the USA? Well, it turns out that except for the U.S. and a couple other countries, most nations have no laws requiring the reporting of infant deaths. Isn't that interesting? I wonder if the WHO knew that when they excoriated us for our infant mortality figures? Maybe in an attempt to make the mean old USA look worse than Cuba. Naaah! They'd never do that to the nation that provides most of their funding!

Would they?