READING DAY AND A WORD ON WASHINGTON GRIDLOCK

I found some really interesting stuff to read today. I spent the better part of the morning paging through another book on ethics. Then I had some phone calls to make. To be blunt, it cut straight into my writing time.

But that doesn't matter. I grow when I read. I stock up on ideas. When I sit down to write tomorrow morning, I'm sure my inspiration will be flowing at full speed.

In the meantime, thanks for checking in. And don't forget to check out my archives!

I started looking through everything I've written so far about Barack Obama. I'm amazed that my satires have partially proven correct. Last year at this time, I never would have thought that my jokes about stubborn Republican opposition to Obama would have proven true. But oh how they did: Painfully so. In fact, the Republicans have succeeded in completely intimidating Obama simply by digging in their heels, crossing their arms and saying the word "no."

Democrats have not done much better. They refuse to stand up to the Republicans even though they have massive Congressional majorities. But whenever they pass something, the Republicans start screaming "tyranny by the majority." Now most Americans think Obama caused all the problems that originated more than 10 years ago. It's just hopeless.

Who'd a thunk that would have happened on February 3, 2009? I know I didn't. On the other hand, perhaps we all expected just a little too much from the Washington political system. I don't blame Obama as much as I blame the entire wretched two-party system with its identical, wealthy members. There really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They all come from the same social class. They just debate each other for show. In the end, nothing changes. Nothing at all.

But at least it gives me something to satirize. I guess that's the saving grace for me. There is abiding truth to the old Russian adage that "laughter through tears" is the best kind of laughter.

Oesterhoudt

HORSE-TRADING DEMOCRACY : COMPROMISES ARE WEAK

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Yesterday I read an article about the health care reform bill that narrowly passed the House. The author said the bill faced a "hard time" in the Senate. Just a few votes could decide the issue. Not surprisingly, Obama is now "courting" those few votes, including some "moderate Republican woman from Maine." In essence, then, this means that health care reform for all Americans hinges on the individual proclivities of one or two wealthy Senators.

I call this "horse-trading" democracy. When a political system is as divided as ours today, something truly pernicious happens: A few "swing voters" wind up holding all the power. These "swing voters" know that they hold the key to legislative victory, so they exploit their unique "middle" position to wring concessions from both sides. In essence, they have "really good horses," so they can go to market and really get a good price.

This is not public service. This is crass individual power play.

Some say that American government has persisted for so long because it has a "genius for compromise." They say that real progress flows not from imposing one vision over another, but rather from reasonable dialogue among several visions. That dialogue, in turn, transforms legislative bombast into modest, deliberate action for the Nation as a whole. Compromise, so the wisdom goes, trims radicalism and results in the greatest good for all.

All that may have been true at earlier times in our history. But today the national debate is hopelessly splintered. Democrats don't agree with Republicans. Republicans would rather die than give Obama anything he wants, even in a compromised form. By the same token, Democrats would have rather died than have given Bush anything he wanted when he was President, even in a compromised form. Both sides lambaste and criticize one another with hellish vitriol. Both sides claim that the world will end if "the other side" prevails. It is neither reasonable nor even collegial. In such a poisonous atmosphere, there is no room for genuine dialogue. That is why "real compromise" is an impossibility in modern American government. The two ideological camps are too well entrenched. Nobody budges for the "public good" anymore.

This is not good for the country. Reform suffocates amid compromise and party infighting. Real reform requires a hard look at old problems with new eyes. Yet modern Washington politics rule out any fresh ideas on old problems. Unless a solution fits party-line ideological demands, no one will support it. In the end, this leads to two possible outcomes: "Tyranny by a small majority over a large minority;" or compromise. In either situation, truly sweeping reform cannot prevail. In the first case, the small majority (51%) imposes its will against ferocious opposition; the large minority (49%) then becomes so outraged that it actively undermines the reform's function. In the second case, reform loses its character as reform, because compromise necessarily dilutes its force through myriad concessions.

And then there is horse-trading. To get health care reform through the Senate, Obama must "play ball" with the tiny number of Senators who have not already declared their allegiance on the issue. These "swing voters" not only have an opportunity to enrich their constituents, but also to shape the bill's substance. In essence, "horse-traders" like the "moderate Republican from Maine" get the final say on a momentous national issue. They get to say not only whether the bill passes; they also get to dictate what the law says. After all, they have the horses. They won't sell if they don't get the price they want. So they name the price and everyone else has to follow along. At the same time, horse traders can pander to the opposition by refusing to support the bill. They can achieve advantages from that stance, too.

What does all this have to do with meaningful reform? What does all this petty power posturing have to do with substantial change in a modern world? Nothing.

I don't like compromise government. Yet for better or worse, modern American government has degenerated into an acrimonious two-player game. One side believes the opposite of the other, and one or two individuals on either side can tip the balance one way or the other. In such circumstances, it is impossible to govern by principle or even by popular will. While Congressmen are supposed to represent the people, in the final analysis they are individuals. They can do what they please when voting for bills. In a democracy as splintered as ours, that means a few individuals can block legislative initiatives that millions dearly want. Or they can demand concessions or compromises that gut a hopeful bill's reform effort.

Compromise government never delivers hot or cold; it only delivers mild. Yet life at times demands hot or cold; mild water does not boil tea, nor does it make ice. And when both parties in government cannot reasonably talk to each other, it opens the door to horse-trading. In sum, this entrusts all authority over public issues to a few lucky Senators who are neither hot nor cold.

I do not call this "the genius of compromise government." I call it theoretical weakness and mediocrity. And at a moment when America needs hot or cold, this government will deliver mild at best--if anything at all.

But at least the "moderate Republican from Maine" will get something from the deal. And who cares about what everyone else wants?

A WORD ON JOE WILSON AND THE NATIONAL DEBATE

A REFLECTION

I would be remiss if I did not write something about Representative Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst last night during President Obama’s congressional health care address. I was genuinely stunned when I heard someone—a Washington politician, not some anarchist on the street or even a stealthy outside activist—call out “You lie” as the President spoke. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all about disrespecting authority. But I have some standards about the time and place to do it.

For a moment, I thought that we had gone the way of the British parliament, in which acting politicians traditionally interrupt their colleagues as they speak. Yet there is something hallowed about Presidential speeches before Congress. They are not “routine debates.” There is an unspoken code of decorum when the President speaks during a joint meeting of government. For a brief moment, Congressmen and Senators put aside their everyday quarrels in deference to the Executive. When both parties sit and listen to the President—no matter his own party affiliation—it reinforces the notion that the government is united, even if only symbolically. To return to the British example, not even the cheekiest MP ever shouts at the Queen when she speaks.

Joe Wilson’s outburst destroyed even that fictional unity. And why? To protest President Obama’s contention that the Democratic health care reform plan would not cover illegal aliens. This man took an unprecedented step against congressional protocol to personally attack President Obama’s honesty in the very halls of government. Pundits on both sides will endlessly debate whether the President’s statement was “technically accurate.” But that is really not the point. Rhetoric is not science. It does not work when it bogs down in minuscule details. Statements do not carry as much rhetorical punch when they nitpick. Perhaps Obama did not remember every single proposed section in every single proposed bill about health care. Perhaps he even misspoke. I don’t know.

Still, misspeaking does not warrant the pejorative exclamation: “You lie.” Those are fighting words. They do not impinge upon technical knowledge. They impinge upon personal honor, integrity and decency. They are as much an insult as a critique.

In a way, Joe Wilson’s outburst does not surprise me. I have warned over and over again that Obama faces very real dangers simply because he is an African-American in a country with a longstanding tradition of intolerance toward African-Americans. I have warned that Obama’s mere presence courts danger in some parts of the country. His first months in office have borne out my warnings. Never before has dissent been so ominous as dissent on Obama’s health care push. Town hall meetings descend into shouting matches and fistfights. Republicans show up to Presidential appearances with loaded rifles. Opponents concoct absurd stories about “death panels” and suggest that President Obama is not an American citizen. Now Joe Wilson ignores traditional respect for the President’s office by calling him a liar on the floor of Congress.

These are not good omens. They show that Obama’s opponents not only do not respect him, but they are willing to put aside all civility in order to derail him. It is just a matter of time before heated words and sneering disrespect turn into violence. Worse, Joe Wilson’s outburst shows that not just private citizens adhere to these sentiments. So do elected officials. And they actually swore an oath to uphold the constitutional system.

Republicans will undoubtedly counter that Democrats showed no respect toward George W. Bush during his time in office. They will say that fiery partisanship is the order of the day in modern Washington politics. True, many private citizens paraded against Bush. They even threw eggs at his Presidential limo during his inauguration in 2001. Democratic politicians, too, reserved harsh words for Bush in public statements. But in no case did any Democratic Congressman ever interrupt President Bush while he spoke to Congress, let alone call him a liar in public. In this sense, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of partisan politics. The difference is that Republicans willingly disrespect constitutional traditions in order to spew their bile.

I venture that Democrats had every reason to interrupt Bush for lying during his Congressional addresses. After all, Bush told Congress that African nations were supplying uranium to Saddam Hussein. He also manufactured stories to suggest that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to induce support for a foreign war. These were lies that led America into bloody armed conflict and bankruptcy. They were not casual misstatements about thousand-page health care legislation. If ever a congressman had reason to scream “You Lie” at the President in the Capitol Building, it was in 2002 or 2003.

Yet I applaud the Democrats for never doing so. Rather than disturb traditional respect for the President while he speaks to Congress, Democrats waited until after the speech to register their dissent. They observed protocol, if for no other reason than to maintain the fictional unity that the protocol is intended to generate.

Not so with Joe Wilson. Protocol meant nothing to him, nor did the importance of the “unity fiction in government.” What does this mean? I think it means that the national debate is flying off the handle. In recent months, rhetoric about health care has reached white-hot levels. It is as belligerent as it is unreasonable, misinformed and confused. Civility has no place in this debate. And Joe Wilson’s outburst shows that civility cannot even survive in the Capitol Building while the President speaks.

This is the state of our national debate. It does not bode well. Democracy only works when the losing party accepts the winning party’s rule. It fails when the losing party revolts and refuses to cooperate on anything. In ancient Rome, civil wars broke out whenever an Emperor died because there was no protocol for succession. In the United States, we peacefully transition power to winning Presidents, even though millions and millions of people voted against them. The losers do not rebel against the winner. They grin and bear their loss for the good of the Nation as a whole. They continue to dissent, but they accept some things as sacred. They know when and where to dissent. Even MPs in England know that.

Joe Wilson’s outburst seems to show that the losers don’t really think that way anymore. On health care, nothing is sacred. Civility is dead. Not even age-old congressional traditions and unspoken deference to the President during an official address constrain those determined to undermine ideas with which they disagree.

I have many objections about the American constitutional system. I do not shy away from expressing them. To use a hackneyed phrase, criticism is patriotic. Nonetheless, I would never get up and yell at the President, especially if I were an elected official who took an oath to serve our constitutional system. For all my sneering irony and sarcasm, I know my place. Not only that, criticism works best in private.

I do not believe that Joe Wilson is an isolated case. He spoke for a very real constituency when he yelled at the President. There are others just like him. They have even less respect for democratic traditions than Joe Wilson. They are regular guys with guns; and they do a lot more than call people liars.

This is what happens when reform-minded Presidents try to shake things up in the United States. And they weren’t even black.

PALIN ON POLICY : OBAMA-CARE WILL KILL YOUR GRANDPARENTS, CHILDREN AND PETS

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Sarah Louise Heath Palin, B.S (Journalism/Communication, University of Idaho, 1987), Former Republican Candidate for Vice President of the United States (2008); Former Governor of the Democratic Republic of the State of Alaska (resigned 2009); Foreign Policy Expert (Russian Studies); Clay Pigeon Champion, Anchorage Gals With Guns Club (2006); Champion, Alaska State Women’s Basketball Tournament (1982); Master Chef (Specializing in Patented “Big Game Burgers,” including Moose Macs® and Elk-O-Steaks®); Health Care Expert; Republican.

Before the election last year, I wrote about my foreign policy experience. See http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-on-policy.html. In that article, I warned that America had to take swift action to protect Portugal against imminent Russian aggression because Russia and Portugal share a long border. I know all about Russia. I live right next door to them. And I know you can’t trust Ivan.

Thankfully, the Soviets never attacked the defenseless Portuguese. I am confident that my strong stance on the matter dissuaded Moscow from launching an attack on its Portuguese neighbor. I received wide praise for my foreign policy work. Although I did not win the election, I gained valuable experience in foreign policy matters. The Northern Alaska State Polytechnic Institute at Dead Gull even honored me with a Professorship in Russian Studies. So when it comes to Russia, I know what I’m talking about.

In the months since the election, I have gained insights into other policy areas. Now, I am not just an expert in Alaska State highway law and local drilling ordinances. I have also learned a great deal about health care. I resigned my post as Alaska governor in order to fully focus my efforts on national matters. In short, our country faces immense dangers from within. Specifically, we face an evil man: Barack Obama. It is my duty to unite all Americans against him. If we do not, there is no telling how many children he will kill.

I am determined to oppose Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts. Last week, I informed the public that Obama’s proposed health care legislation will constitute Federal “death panels” that will decide whether certain people receive medical care. As the mother of a disabled child—and as a Republican—I know that Obama’s “death panels” will refuse care for disabled Republican children. Obama’s “death panels” will only award care to black mothers, welfare recipients, anti-gun activists, conservationists, homosexuals, Democratic firebrands and smug CNN newscasters. They will not award care to innocent Republican children or FOX news anchormen like Shepard Smith or Bill O’Reilly. If Obama succeeds in passing this bill, Shepard Smith and Bill O’Reilly could go without medical care. Obama’s ruthless “death panels” will let good-looking liberals like Anderson Cooper live, but let crooked-faced conservatives like Greta van Susteren die. This is injustice. We must stop him.

As a health care expert, it is my duty to alert the American people about Obama’s plans. I have information that is not yet publicly available. I must speak. I owe it to America. America faces grave danger. Although Americans are rising up in opposition to Obama’s plan for many reasons, they will not truly stop him unless they know all the facts. At the moment, Americans resist Obama because they fear his plan will prevent them from seeing their own doctors or reduce their benefits. They do not know whether this will happen. They just fear it. Americans are rightly afraid. But they would be terrified if they knew what I know.

Let me put all doubts to rest: Obama’s health bill creates “death panels.” This is not a rumor. No matter what the New York Times says, Federal bureaucrats will soon decide whether people receive medical care. But it gets worse. According to my sources, Obama intends to staff his “death panels” with convicted criminals, hip-hop artists, gay DJs and radical filmmakers. Only Democrats will be allowed to serve on death panels. Additionally, Obama has personally drafted a “Death Panel Protocol” governing medical care award decisions. The Protocol creates a presumption that Republicans do not deserve care. The Protocol gives death panels full discretion whether to deny care to a Republican, but limits its discretion whether to deny care to a Democrat. Worse, the Protocol creates a universal right for African-Americans, immigrants and minimum wage employees to receive top-notch medical treatment, but denies that right to everyone else. In short, if you are not black, Democratic or an immigrant, or if you make more than $5.45 an hour, an Obama death panel might just let you die a horrible death.

This is not all. According to my sources, Obama’s Death Panel Protocol also creates a Special Death Panel Executive Arm. In essence, this Executive Arm empowers death panels to “eliminate unworthy life.” Thus, if Obama-Care prevails, “death panels” will not just decide whether sick Republicans get medical treatment. They will also have the authority to seek out and kill anyone—and any animal—they consider “unworthy of life.” My sources have revealed that Death Panels will have full authority to conduct secret investigations to locate “unworthy life” without court approval. Once a person has been identified as “unworthy,” he or she may appeal to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for mercy. But President Obama has instructed Justice Sotomayor to deny all appeals unless “eliminating the targeted individual would jeopardize the overall goals of the health care reform effort.” This means that no Republican will survive.

Americans have a right to know about this. We cannot yield to Obama’s sweet talk any longer. If we do not take a stand against Obama-Care now, we will lose far more than the contractual right to see whatever proctologist we choose. Quite simply, if we do not fight back now, Obama will kill our grandparents, children and pets. What’s to stop Obama’s death panels from declaring that our sick grandparents are not “unworthy of life?” What’s to stop his vicious bureaucrats from investigating our housecats and targeting them for execution? And what’s to stop the death panels from slaughtering our newborn Republican young? We cannot depend on Justice Sotomayor to save our grandparents, children and pets. We must do something now. We must resist the death panels before they open for business.

Information will win the health care debate. Obama thinks he can win the battle for health care by concealing the truth from the American people. I refuse to let him deceive us. I refuse to let him channel the debate away from death panels and government-run health care. I refuse to let him fool Americans into thinking that he wants to care for them, when in fact he wants to cut my grandfather's throat. Obama is not a savior. He is the angel of death. I will not rest until every American knows the truth.

Democracy cannot survive when the public lives in ignorance. President Obama has skillfully manipulated the health care crisis in order to implement his sinister plan for social reconstruction. He knows that Americans are worried about health care. He knows that no one has a straight answer about the facts. He knows people are confused. So he employs his artful rhetoric, hoping to gloss over his secret plan to kill our grandparents, children and pets. He says he believes in Democracy and “compassionate care for all.” Well, if “compassionate care for all” means drowning Republican children, gassing Republican seniors and butchering Republican puppies, we will have none of it. We refuse to support a system that will care only for blacks but kill everyone else. Americans deserve to learn the truth. This is not about hope or compassion. This is about killing Republicans and letting innocent pets die.

Join me in bringing rationality back to the health care debate. In my view, there was nothing wrong with the American health care system in the first place. It is not difficult to get private health insurance as long as you have a job, you’re healthy and you do not fall under a contractual exclusion in the policy. It’s your responsibility and right as an American to bargain for whatever contract you want. It’s your responsibility to read the contract, and it’s your responsibility to accept the consequences if the insurance company decides against you. This is the way it’s always been. Health care is no different from any other business.

As a health care policy expert, my solution is simple: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I have health insurance. I paid for it. I am responsible. So I have no complaints about the American health care system. If others don’t get health insurance—or if their existing insurance does not cover some special eye improvement surgery—well, they bargained for it. In this country, you get what you pay for. That’s what it’s all about, whether you’re buying health care or a car. Some people buy Mercedes-type health care. Others buy Hyundai-type health care. We can’t all have a Mercedes; that’s just not the way things work around here.

Yet this is why Obama’s rhetoric appealed to so many: He promised to give everyone Mercedes-type health insurance. Of course it struck a chord. Hey, I’d like to get a free car, too. But Obama blinded America with his idealistic promises. He wants to give blacks and immigrants Mercedes-type health care, all right. But he also wants to kill Republican grandparents, children and pets. He thinks he can slip in “death panels” as long as he gives away enough free health care, just as the ancient Roman emperors thought they could commit political atrocities as long as they gave away enough free entertainment to the mob.

We refuse to be manipulated. We are not ignorant Roman plebeians. We are 21st-Century Americans. We know when we are being hoodwinked. As a health care policy expert and a patriot, I am committed to dispelling the sinister lies about Obama-care. I am committed to telling America the truth. If we allow Obama to pass health care reform, we will give government the power over life and death. If you love your grandparents, children and pets, you will stand with me against this tyranny. When you stand with me, you tell Obama: “I am a rational person. I do not believe government has a right to kill my grandma or my parakeet.” When you stand with me, you tell Obama: “I believe in information and democracy, not death panels.” Obama thinks he can beat us by concealing the truth. But the truth will always come out in the end.

Informed Americans are powerful Americans. Informed Americans drive our democracy. Get informed. Learn the truth. Stop Obama-Care before it kills your grandfather, son and dog.

This is America. We care about everyone’s life in this country, not just Democrats and blacks.

DOCTORS SPEAK OUT ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

MEDICAL PERSPECTIVES

By : Dr. Herbert G. Butts, M.D. (Gastroenterologist Specializing in Anal Repairs & Sphincter Reconstruction); President, Union of American Physicians for Fiscal Strength, Washington, D.C.; Contributing Editor, The American Medical Journal (Finance & Insurance Section); M.B.A., The Wharton School of Business (Thesis on ‘Margin Management in Health Care’); Top 25 Donor, Radiologists for Unlimited Investment Opportunity Without Taxation (Houston, Texas).

Once again, Congress debates health care reform. Once again, our Nation’s representatives want to squander America’s treasure on wasteful programs intended to provide medical treatment to those who cannot afford private health insurance. They say they want to bring justice and humanity to a system that should care about people, not profits. They say they want to turn a new page in the history of American medicine. They have not really said how they will do this. But one thing is certain: It is going to cost a lot. And when government programs cost a lot, taxes go up. When taxes go up, people with money wind up footing the bill for those who don’t have enough.

As a physician, I welcome Congress’ efforts to reform the health care system. I support any initiative that will bring quality health care to more Americans. But there is a caveat to my support: I will not support any Congressional action that does not guarantee that every doctor will make at least $2,000,000 net annually under the new system. Put simply, doctors are trained professionals. People need us. We know how to fix damaged hearts and sew on severed limbs. We don’t work for free. And we’re not here to help. We’re here to make a living—a really good living. Congress cannot expect us to work our miracles without paying us what we deserve.

Congress must recognize that health care would be meaningless without doctors. Doctors are the only people in our society with the technical knowledge necessary to heal the sick. True, mothers from coast to coast know home remedies for sore throats and colds. But very few mothers know how to anaesthetize their children, draw up detailed charts documenting their health in illegible handwriting, drape them in the customary supine manner, monitor their heart rate then perform precise anal surgery on them with laser equipment. Mothers may be able to cure a mild flu with chicken broth and bed rest. But only we can excise anal cancer polyps or save their children from massive head trauma. No spices, orange peels or herb soups will stop a cerebral hemorrhage. For that, you need a doctor. When the chips are really down, you need us.

Yet many Americans—including dangerous liberal Democrats in Congress—think that we doctors entered our profession because we truly want to relieve suffering. They think we perform anal examinations on 700-pound women because we care about their health. They think we remove ugly intestines because we truly want to save people from cancer. In short, they fatally misjudge our motivations. We doctors would not have gone to school for 25 years if we did not expect to make a fortune after age 40. We would not have spent decades in operating rooms and labs if we did not expect a massive reward for our efforts. And we would not have sacrificed our youth working sleepless 140-hour shifts every week after medical school. Put simply, we have worked extremely hard. It is not about the patient; it is about us. We have suffered to get where we are. As physicians, we will not allow Congress to insult us by paying us less than $2,000,000 every year. It’s about time that someone thought about the doctors for once, not the patients. After all, we do all the work. Patients just lie there under anesthesia and wake up later. That’s pretty lazy, if you ask me.

Doctors need something to look forward to. As President of the Union of American Physicians for Fiscal Strength, I speak for every doctor when I say that we like money. No one in our society works as much as we do. No one in our society delivers such tangible worth as we do. Think about it: When you bring your sick mother into the hospital, our skilled work saves her from death. Isn’t that valuable? If we didn’t spend our whole lives studying and scurrying around hospitals, we could not have saved your mother. Don’t you think we deserve a big salary for that? We are happy to save your mother, but remember what we go through every day, too. We expect to be well compensated for our services. If we did not have large salaries, bonuses and insurance incentives to look forward to, we would not want to get up in the morning. How would you feel if you knew you had to stitch an immigrant’s anal canal for 14 hours for a paltry $500,000 per year? What if you had to stick your finger up a homeless person’s anus for a lousy $500 weekly stipend from a city bureau? And what if you faced medical malpractice charges for creating a vaginal fistula knowing that Medicaid will pay you pennies—if anything at all—for your toils? You wouldn’t like it, let me tell you. In a word, physicians face tremendous stress and difficulty every day. Only sufficient salaries can provide the motivation necessary for physicians to cope with the pressures unique to their trade.

We sincerely hope that Congress will recognize that health care reform will not succeed without our support. No matter what Congress decides to do, it must ensure that every doctor in America receives at least $2,000,000 per year. We leave it to Congress to decide how to organize our pay rates. Obviously experienced doctors must receive more than the minimum salary. Obviously radiologists must receive double the going rate for comparable internists. And obviously doctors who secure favorable results for more patients should receive “performance bonuses.” If Congress really wants to reform health care, it will provide suitable incentives for doctors. If doctors know that they will receive a $750,000 performance bonus if they remove 15,000 polyps per month, they will more zealously remove polyps. A world with fewer polyps is a better world. Congress can achieve goals like these if it simply pays doctors what they deserve.

Many liberal Democrats say that doctors need to consider the “common good” in order to change focus in American health care. They say that doctors must play a “philosophical role” in changing the way our country approaches the issue. We strongly disagree.

First, as medical professionals, we are neither politicians nor philosophers. We are technicians. We are bodily repairmen. No one expects a mechanic to care about philosophy. The same goes for doctors. We are no different from any other worker. We ply our trade and we expect pay for our labor. We stitch, cut, suture, order lab tests and write prescriptions. We do not philosophize. The “common good” is not necessary to perform incisions, administer chemotherapy or clear an artery. While our skills may result in “good” for society, the “common good” is certainly not necessary for technical medical work.

Second, we are really not all that different from other workers in the economy. Although our skills may be especially valuable, we want the same things from life as everyone else. We want to own real estate. We want stable investments. We want cars. We want savings accounts. We want to send our children to college. We differ from average workers to the extent that we work harder. We spent a long time in school and even longer in professional training. It is only fair that we receive some special compensation for our incredible sacrifices. That is why we expect to own at least a second home, and maybe some income-producing rental properties. These are reasonable expectations. Every American deserves some reward for performing valuable work. In that regard, doctors are no different from anyone else in our society.

In brief, it is both unrealistic and unfair to ascribe some special “nobility” to doctors. We work for the same reasons everyone else does. Congress must understand that. We are not saints. We are just trained professionals who perform impressive work. Saints work for free. Professionals don’t.

As our representatives continue to debate health care reform, we demand that they remember the doctors. We are the real miracle workers who make our system great. Our system became great because doctors receive the pay they deserve. They have an incentive to work hard. Over time, those incentives led to revolutionary new treatments, medications and procedures. Until now, our system proved that when doctors get paid, anything is possible.

True, some people in our system could not receive care. But that was a small price to pay for the medical miracles we achieved through proper pay. We expect that Congress will recognize that health care in America depends on well-paid doctors. Without at least $2,000,000 a year, the miracle well will run dry. No one will endure 25 years in school and sleepless 140-hour weeks without a suitable reward to covet. Our country has always rewarded hard work and valuable service. Our health care system is no exception.

We do not care whether Congress adopts universal care or retains our private market system to provide health coverage. We simply demand that every physician in this country receive at least $2,000,000 per year. It is a simple demand. We do not care where Congress gets the money for our salaries. We simply remind Congress that without at least $2,000,000 every year, no doctor will have an incentive to repair anal canals, invent new erectile dysfunction medications or deliver deformed children. In this light, it is in the national interest to keep paying doctors, even if that means taxing other professions. We are the only technicians who can save lives. We deserve to be paid commensurate with the importance of our skill and knowledge. If we do not receive what we are worth, we’re walking. We don’t care what the State disciplinary boards say. This is about fair pay, not duty.

You want us to save your mother when she breaks her hip, don’t you? You want us to save your child when he falls down a drainage pipe and fractures his skull, don’t you? You want us to successfully replace your jaundiced wife’s liver, don’t you? You want us to find a cure for cancer, don’t you? Well, we won’t do any of these things unless Congress guarantees that we get at least $2,000,000 a year—every year. We don’t care where the money comes from. We just want it.

We might be doctors. But we’ve worked hard in our lives. We’ve learned how to cheat death and extend life. We’ve learned how to read medical charts and MRI scans. We know what masses are benign and which ones aren’t. This is valuable knowledge. We don’t share it for free. We spent 25 sleepless years to learn our craft. Congress had better pay up or no one’s going to get it.

THE SOTOMAYOR CONFIRMATION : SHOULD WE EXPECT OUR JUDGES TO BE COWARDS?

AN ESSAY

I have little doubt that the Senate will confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as our next Supreme Court justice. I make this judgment on purely political grounds. After all, the power to confirm “Judges of the supreme court” lies with the Senate (see U.S. Const., Art. II § 2, cl. 2). And if history is any guide, it shows that the Senate party in power wins the confirmation fights. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, they easily overcame Democratic resistance to appoint fellow Republicans Chief Justice John G. Roberts (78-22) and Justice Samuel A. Alito (58-42). Now, the Democrats control the Senate by a healthy majority. They will similarly endorse their fellow Democrat, Judge Sotomayor. This has little to do with legal ability, conscience, honor or principle. It is all about politics. If you have more votes than the opposition, you win. If you don’t, you lose. If Plato were nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President and the Republicans controlled the Senate, he would not be confirmed.

But of course the Republican minority will carp in this case, just as the Democrats carped when the Republicans controlled the Senate. It will not affect anything. It will just fill the air with bitterness and resentment; this is Washington and we should expect nothing less. Still, I always find it interesting when politicians bluster in vain because it gives me an insight into their values. Despite Judge Sotomayor’s obvious “Supreme Court pedigree” (i.e., she went to a top-tier law school; she got good grades; she clerked for the right federal judge; she served as a lower court judge; she curried enough political favor; she never went to prison or owed excessive debt), Republicans nonetheless will find issues to whine about. It is as predictable as the rain.

In a New York Times article today (Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issues of Temperament, May 29, 2009), I read that the Republicans find fault with Judge Sotomayor’s “sharp tongue.” According to several lawyers who practice before her on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Judge Sotomayor is “occasionally combative,” “difficult” and “nasty” when she hears an argument she does not like. Some even said she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner.” This, in sum, has led Republican critics to oppose her “judicial temperament” rather than her intellectual qualifications. In other words, she may be smart, but she is not sufficiently polite to be a Supreme Court justice.

I actually like the fact that Judge Sotomayor volunteers her own opinions from the bench, especially when she criticizes a preposterous argument. I turned my back on the law because it is too technical. I reject its formalism, its inequalities and its vapid, hypocritical rhetoric. I reject it because it grandly claims to serve justice, when it generally only serves power. I reject it because it espouses principle, yet denies it to anyone who does not worship “procedure.” I reject it because it advances order over right, even when right is apparent. I generally despise judges because they buy fully into these hypocrisies to support a fundamentally unfair system. But sometimes judges surprise me. When they actually voice respect for justice and right, they redeem themselves. I even appreciate them when they dare to speak their minds about legal issues rather than merely reference arcane procedural rules to avoid the obvious, burning question. See, e.g., F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Supreme Court Docket No. 07-582 (decided April 28, 2009). Judge Sotomayor does this more often than the Republicans like. This makes her an “activist” and “out of control.” As soon as a judge starts talking about justice, in other words, she has a “problem with temperament.”

What caused the Republicans to question Judge Sotomayor’s “manner on the bench?” They point particularly to her conduct in a recent appellate court oral argument in a case called Arar v. Ashcroft (see video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1706247655617377220). This is a high-profile case about the Executive’s alleged power to “render” foreign citizens to third-party countries to be tortured for “counterterrorism information.” Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who claims he was seized in the United States when transferring to a flight to Canada at an American airport. Arar said there had been a terrible mistake. The agents saw things differently. After a short detention, American agents allegedly sent him to Syria in order to circumvent America’s ban on torture. There, Syrian agents imprisoned him for almost a year and subjected him to various bodily indignities. Finally, they determined he was not a terrorist and sent him back to Canada. Now he sues the American agents who handed him over to Syria, claiming they knew full well he would be tortured there. In response, the United States government denied responsibility and asserted that American courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case because “federal agents” are not liable for “constitutional torts” when “national security and foreign policy” are at issue.

During oral arguments in Arar, Judge Sotomayor questioned the government’s lawyer. She cut him off twice in order to confirm her understanding about the government’s position in the case. She wanted to know whether the United States government truly asserted that American agents face no liability for sending people to be tortured abroad as long as they doctor up some “national security explanation.” This angered Judge Sotomayor for good reason. In essence, the government contended that it was “OK” to render people to countries that allow torture because the Executive has unquestionable “power in foreign relations matters.” Judge Sotomayor did not like that contention. She made her feelings clear that it was an awkward argument to make, especially in a country that professes respect for individual rights and liberties. She did not like the argument that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” simply because it says “national security is at stake.” She thought those sentiments did not sit well with the principles that animate our constitutional system. And because she made her feelings clear, Republicans now call her “sharp-tongued,” “out-of-control” and “nasty.”

Judge Sotomayor won my respect by confronting the government’s lawyer in this case. She was not even disrespectful or “nasty” when making her points. She may have interrupted the lawyer, but she did not insult or humiliate him. That is normal business in American appellate courts. Judges always showcase themselves over the lawyers. The lawyer’s cursory statements simply provide fodder for the judges’ own rhetoric. Judge Sotomayor did the same thing that many Republican judges do every day. But here, she actually took a strong position on an issue that should concern us all: Torture. If a judge does not get passionate about claims that her own government endorses torture, what will spark her interest? Securities fraud? Accounting irregularities? Property disputes? If anything at all arouses a judge’s sense of right and wrong, it should be torture. The United States claims to be a progressive, civilized country that respects rights and laws. Yet torture represents an earlier, not-so-civilized age in which raw, ugly power ruled over principle and reason. America publicly condemns countries that practice torture today. Against this background, if a judge does not fundamentally recoil when confronting allegations that the American government endorses torture, she should be ashamed to call herself a jurist.

This reveals the absurdity in the Republican position. Did they expect Judge Sotomayor to sit inertly by while the government’s attorney tried to justify torture with disingenuous procedural arguments? If they did, what does that say about their values? That torture is “OK” as long as a Republican administration orchestrates it? That “procedure” should win out over “justice?” They would have preferred that Judge Sotomayor said nothing and merely allowed the government’s lawyer to spin his guilty logic. You can even see in the video that the government’s lawyer is uneasy, not just because he is on the hot seat, but because he knows that it is wrong to defend torture. His face contorts. He bites his lip. His eyes dart nervously through the courtroom. When judges confront him about his substantive position, he tiptoes around the real issue and starts talking about procedures and precedents. He cannot bring himself to admit that torture is wrong, yet his demeanor admits it for him. Thus, the contrast between his behavior and his words make him a glaring hypocrite. Only his mechanical legal training prevents him from breaking down altogether. To her credit, Judge Sotomayor showed that she could forgo logic when confronted with fundamental wrong.

She did not sit quietly through this nonsense. No person with a basic sense of justice could have. Yet the Republicans seem to think that speaking out about fundamental injustice makes a judge “out of control.” As soon as a judge departs from vacuous questions about procedure, jurisdiction and statutory authority, she reveals a “poor judicial temperament.” In short, it seems to me that the Republicans want cowardice in a judge. A cowardly judge would allow the Executive to get away with anything. A cowardly judge would resolve a torture case on procedural grounds rather than grapple with fundamental questions of justice. A cowardly judge puts full faith in the “law,” even when the law clearly will not do “right.” A cowardly judge sits by and lets others do the real work later. A daring judge, on the other hand, can at least acknowledge wrong when she sees it and set the country on the right rhetorical path to correct it. I think Judge Sotomayor showed some daring in her exchange with the government’s lawyer in the Arar case.

But in the end, it really comes down to politics. A liberal “daring judge” is a “coward” to conservative eyes, while a conservative “daring judge” is a “coward” to liberal eyes. Here, Judge Sotomayor spoke out about an issue that largely appeals to liberals: The ignominy of torture. Because she spoke out on that issue, liberals label her “daring,” while conservatives call her “out of control.” But if a judge passionately spoke out about an issue dear to conservative hearts, such as “national security,” conservatives would call him “daring,” while liberals would label him “a coward” or “out of control.” Sadly, we see that principle plays nary a role in these judgments. It is simply about who says what, and whether the issue appeals to conservatives or liberals.

Must our judges be cowards? If we adopt conservative rhetoric, judges must be cowards when addressing questions concerning individual rights, dignity and justice. If we adopt liberal rhetoric, judges must be “out-of-control” when addressing questions concerning procedure, unfair power relationships and judicial restraint. If I had to choose, I would prefer a judge to be daring about liberty, dignity, individual rights and justice. Despite all my cynicism and suspicion, I still believe that the Constitution stands for good. I believe that it stands for evolving liberty and gradual improvement in society through advancing principle. I would prefer a judge be passionate about those ideas rather than cowardly and technical. Unfortunately, modern “judicial thought” counsels strongly against “expansive judging” and “unnecessary explications of principle” in court opinions. But why even bother having a Constitution if we do not have daring judges to expand upon the liberties enshrined in it? How do we advance as a society when our own constitutional arbiters take a narrow view on liberty? Should we not expect our jurists to advocate for us, “We the People,” the ones who created the Constitution in the first place? The ones who delegated its authority after the Revolution? If Congress and the President fail us—as I think they did on the torture question in the Bush years—who will speak for us?

I think we should expect our jurists to advocate for us. Judge Sotomayor showed that she at least cares about how our government acts with respect to our rights as citizens in a constitutional system. She recoiled from the suggestion that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” whenever it conjures up a shadowy “national security reason.” In essence, she showed that individuals matter more than the government. That is certainly an advance over Roberts and Alito, who could care less whether government swallows up individuals, or whether innocent people die at the hands of the State. In other words, Judge Sotomayor’s conduct at the Arar argument shows that she cares at least something for justice. In my view, that is an auspicious qualification for serving on the Supreme Court. And among at least four of its current members, it is a qualification sorely lacking.

Having said all this, I am glad I am not a judge. I like thinking for myself, not attempting to shoehorn my beliefs into precedent and prior judgment. Judicial work lends itself to obedience and cowardice far more than it does to daring. After all, judges work with others’ words, not their own. It is hard to be creative when someone else tells you how to paint. I echo Nietzsche on this score. Judicial work is like “dancing in chains.” Menschliches, allzu Menschliches Teil II, Der Wanderer und Sein Schatten Aph. 140 (“For what we call ‘Invention’ [in art] (metric rhyming, for example) is always just another chain that we lay upon ourselves”). Judges constantly imprison themselves in others’ logic and arguments. It is what they do. Yet when some passion escapes the chains, we should embrace it with full hearts.

DEMOCRATS CANNOT HANDLE HOMELAND SECURITY : ONLY REPUBLICANS KNOW HOW TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE

By : Mr. Mitch McConnell, United States Senator (R-KY); Senate Minority Leader; Obama Opponent; Homeland Security Expert; Member, Agriculture Committee.

THE MINORITY VOICE

President Barack Hussein Obama has led this country for 100 torturous days. During that time, the President has made war on the American people by releasing brutal terrorists from our military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has also eased restrictions on immigration, flooding our land with Spanish-speaking beggars, criminals and litterbugs. Backed by a majority in Congress, Mr. Obama has dismantled the wall his predecessor erected to defend this country from terror and miscreants, both foreign and domestic. Worse, he has put an emphasis on “fair process for all” and a “commitment to constitutional liberty” over security for American women and children. He has staffed the Homeland Security Department with liberal lawyers and law professors, some of whom are practicing Arab-loving homosexuals. He has committed to quitting the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In short, Obama is a national disgrace; Democrats do not know anything about Homeland Security. As Republicans, we have a duty to protect America. And to protect America during the Obama era, we must strongly oppose anything he does, says or thinks. It is the only way to protect America’s children from terror attacks.

Our Founding Fathers knew that an elected democratic majority could be just as tyrannical as an unelected King. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers inherent in “small majorities.” They knew that a “small majority” could trample on very significant minority interests. For that reason, they provided such measures as the veto override mechanism, the constitutional amendment procedure and the bicameral legislature. They also embodied their commitment to minority rights through parliamentary procedures such as the filibuster, which allows the minority to stop small majorities from voting on key issues. Today, Republicans have a duty to invoke these procedures against Obama and his socialist-terrorist allies. When it comes to national security, Democrats prefer to shake hands with terrorist scum rather than detain, waterboard and kill them. When Republicans see turbans, we shoot; we don’t ask questions. This is the approach we need to defend America. It makes no sense to talk to Arabs; there is no such thing as “friendly relations” with terrorists. George W. Bush understood that.

In 2001, George W. Bush established the Homeland Security Department in order to protect this Nation from all enemies. In the beginning, Mr. Tom Ridge led the bureau. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ridge knew that old-fashioned ideas like due process, liberty, privacy, access to counsel, the right to remain silent and fair trials would not defeat terror in the 21st Century. For that reason, the Department suspended civil liberties in order to catch the bad guys. That was the right decision; after 9/11 America enjoyed seven years without terror. We caught many, many bad guys, although national security protocols forbid me from disclosing their names or how many we caught. We foiled many plots, although I cannot say what they were or how many. Despite all the criticism, Mr. Bush proved that his approach to Homeland Security was the right one.

Now the Democrats control the Homeland Security Department. This is the ultimate irony. During Mr. Bush’s term, the Democrats opposed everything the Department did. They said it trampled on civil liberties and increased Executive power. They said it harassed law-abiding citizens and perpetuated ethnic stereotypes. They said the Department did nothing to protect America; rather, they said it simply increased the President’s power to detain citizens without grounding in law. Of course, these Democrats fail to see that the Department did stop terror. The Department did protect America. The Department seized millions of gallons of contraband shampoo at airport security lines. It made tens of millions of Americans and foreigners remove their shoes and flip-flops. It inconvenienced millions of travelers who had no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda. It forced millions of Americans to take off their clothing and submit to searches without probable cause. It even listened in on millions of innocent phone conversations without court authorization, in many cases uncovering other, minor crimes in the process. Those measures doubtlessly foiled a would-be bomber. In any event, they allowed authorities to track down marijuana sellers and petty thieves. Most importantly, they sent a clear message: America takes security seriously. If America is willing to strip-search normal-looking white citizens for no reason, then certainly an Arab would know that he could not move about freely without attracting attention. Homeland Security reduced America’s privacy; and that was a good thing. If it came between safety and privacy, we would take safety every time. The 9/11 plotters conspired in private. Can I be any clearer on my point that privacy is dangerous? Thanks to the Department’s disrespect for both privacy and the Constitution, we lived in a safe society.

Not anymore. Democrats in the Homeland Security Department have already begun easing restrictions established under President Bush. Rather than viewing every American as a potential terrorist, Democrats assume that all Americans are good and peaceful. They no longer eavesdrop on random phone conversations. They allow Americans to travel with hair gel, personal lubricants, shoe polish, water bottles, shampoo and conditioner. They even smile and say: “Welcome to O’Hare International Airport!” to brown people wearing Muslim headdress, veils and Mohammedan robes. Rather than suspecting Arabs, they apologize for them and send them on their way without a boarding pass. They treat everyone with “decency and respect for constitutional liberty.” They say they want to “restore faith in the Constitution” after President Bush’s “abuses.”

This is no way to run a government. A President has one overriding duty: To protect the American people at all costs. President Obama and his Homeland Security Department mock that duty. Now, they view Americans with compassion and respect, not suspicion and rancor. They follow constitutional procedures and the Bill of Rights; they no longer hold terror suspects without cause or counsel. These idiots! We do not protect America by giving everyone liberty. We protect America by imprisoning the bad guys. Although we Republicans believe in the Constitution, we regard it the way it should be regarded: As optional advice. It would be really nice if we could give everyone habeas corpus and obtain warrants before searching them. But we would leave this country open to attack if we did. If we followed the Constitution—as President Obama suggests—our entire government would break down. Worse, terrorists, hoodlums and immigrants would overwhelm our borders, disturbing business and commerce. If torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping protect this country from Muslims, we say: “Give us torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping.” Good citizens have nothing to hide. In the 21st Century, we face many dangers. We believe that liberty is for criminals and terrorists. In that light, we believe that Mr. Obama and his soft-hearted Homeland Security Department are leading us down the path to ruin.

Democrats could not protect their own mothers, let alone the United States of America. They are a bunch of weak-willed, overintellectual cowards who would rather give an insane beggar welfare than tell him to get a job, get moving and get over it. They cannot even protect America from flu-infected pigs in Ohio and New York, let alone from terrorists in Pakistan. Some lesbian in the Homeland Security Department said yesterday: “We must accord proper respect for the dignity of the livestock before rushing to judgment about their health status.” This is Democratic rule for you: They would rather respect a hog’s rights than protect America from disease. Well, we are glad to provide the minority voice about security. When Republicans see a diseased hog, they do not worry about its “health status” or “dignity.” They kill it and bury it faster than you can say: “Don Rumsfeld.” The same goes for terrorists. When we see a terrorist, we do not worry about constitutional liberty or “proper interrogation procedures.” We lock the towelhead up, waterboard him and throw away the key. If some lesbian ACLU lawyer makes a fuss about it, we might let an Army Colonel look into his case. But if not, it’s Game Over for Habib. Democrats say we disparage the principles that define America. We say those principles don’t apply to terrorists. That’s the difference.

We are committed to preserving democracy in America. For that reason, we will resist every Democratic effort to weaken procedures intended to sniff out terrorists, criminals and immigrants. George W. Bush knew that following the Constitution would not protect this Nation in the 21st Century. When Republicans controlled Congress, they certified the President’s belief by eradicating basic liberties in order to bolster security. Now, the Democrats are determined to reverse our work. We will resist to the last man. We would rather die than see every American treated with respect and dignity. We would rather die than follow the Constitution in every case. We will not “cooperate” or “compromise” when it comes to protecting our children from Muslims and liberal university professors. We will not “go along with the program” to increase free speech rights or abolish domestic warrantless wiretaps. No, we are determined to hold the line against liberty, because liberty is dangerous.

In a word, President Obama is playing with fire. He thinks he is defending liberty and principle. He thinks he is restoring America’s honor because he says that President Bush tarnished our image abroad. In fact, he is opening the door to terror attacks, anarchy, discord and moral rot. And who gives a flying fuck what Europe thinks of us? As long as the good people of Kentucky support me, I am happy. I don’t give a shit what the Parisians or Belgians think. Yet Mr. Obama would rather placate some communist in Holland than protect the American people from ruthless Arab suicide bombers. He would rather give the Iraqis wedding cake and free champagne than kill them once and for all. Screw free elections; let’s just kill all of them and be done with it. Who really cares whether some Iraqi goatherder votes for another Iraqi goatherder to represent him in a sham parliament? I certainly don’t. This is the Republican way, and these are the values we intend to serve in Congress as long as the Democratic dictatorship continues: Security over liberty; peace over the Constitution; commerce over dignity; privilege over rights; suspicion and rancor over reconciliation and cooperation. We will not work with the Democrats. To the contrary, we will seek to scuttle every single legislative initiative they put forward.

We look forward to resisting the Democrats. Although we would much rather hold a majority in Congress, it is quite fun to simply sit back and whine about everything the Democrats do. After all, we are not really obligated to do anything. We do not have the votes to pass what we want, so why not have some fun and just frustrate everything the Democrats try to pull? In the process, we can stand up and rail about security and our values. We are the minority voice. We will be heard. And we will never trust a Muslim, no matter how well-dressed, well-educated or well-meaning. He’s just another terrorist, and he can stick our Constitution where the sun shineth not. It wasn’t even written for him, anyway. Despite all this, we worry about this Nation with Democrats running the Homeland Security Department. Before you know it, they will be inviting Osama bin Laden and his children to Chuck E. Cheese® for pizza, beer and a kumbaya singing session with Nancy Pelosi.

This is Homeland Security in the Age of Obama. We want no part of it. Nonetheless, we still have a Second Amendment. If the Homeland Security Department cannot protect our children, then we will do it ourselves with our own rifles, pistols and shotguns. In America, we know how to defend hearth and home. And we will.

PROFLIGATE DEMOCRATIC WASTRELS IN DEFENSE OF INCREASED SPENDING, DEVIANCE AND DECADENCE

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mrs. Nancy P. Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Unabashed Spendthrift

On November 4, 2008, America chose a Democratic President to lead this country. In so doing, the American people told the world that they are ready to spend money. In the months following the election, I have the led the House of Representatives on a bold path to economic recovery through spending, not saving. The American people are sick and tired of penny-pinching Republicans. They want to print cash, go shopping and spend. As Democrats, we are committed to throwing all your money out the window. George W. Bush and his Republican minions reviled spending. We Democrats are different: We are wastrels. We do not mind spending money. In fact, we really enjoy it. Republicans only had negative messages during their time in power. They always said: “We will NOT spend any money this year.” But we Democrats have a positive message: “We WILL spend money this year—lots of it.” Americans chose us because they want positive messages, not negative ones. The era of fear-mongering and anally-retentive treasury management is over. Let us move proudly into a new era of runaway spending, moral license, decadence, deviance and perversion. This is change we can believe in.

Our economy lies in ruins. Thanks to parsimonious Republican skinflints, countless Americans lost their jobs. Millions more find themselves without health insurance or food money. As Democratic wastrels, we intend to end the hard times. We are prepared to spend trillions of dollars on American working men and women. We are ready to blow $100 bills onto the streets with industrial fans and let unemployed workers take as many as they want. We will stimulate job growth by inviting private employers to come down to the Treasury and take out as much money as they need to keep the payroll rolling. And we are not afraid of terrorists. We will keep the money presses humming for as long as it takes to defeat bin Laden and every Wall Street crook. We do not care about responsibility. We just want to make sure everyone gets all the money they need. Our opponents say that Americans need to “know the value of a dollar.” We say: “What good is it to know the value of a dollar when everyone is unemployed and starving?”

When Americans have money, they are happy. They do not complain. That is why the Democratic Party is America’s party. We spend money on everyone, from Donald Trump all the way down to the homeless beggar who sleeps in a garbage pile outside the Trump Tower. Everyone is equal in our United States. And everyone can visit the Treasury to get as much money as they need. We will beat this recession with a simple phrase: “Come on Down!”

Republicans say that we cannot afford to increase spending on health care, welfare and employment insurance. The Republicans miss the point. We are not going to increase spending. We are going to give away money; there is a difference. We are the party of deviance, insolence, license and irresponsibility. We spend money when we feel like it; we do not wring our hands and talk about “ownership society” or “saving.” We believe that the American people want us to spend money. Through responsibility, Republicans ruined our economy. Through frugality, the Republicans allowed our children to starve. Enough is enough. We will reverse the Republican tide. Responsibility and frugality did not work. It is time for solutions that work. It is time for irresponsibility and extravagance. What good is responsibility when it creates monsters like Bernie Madoff? In our view, we would much rather have irresponsible sods running government than responsible Republicans who steal everything in sight. And what good is frugality when frugal Republicans bankrupted America invading Iraq? The time for responsibility and frugality is over. Join us if you are ready to get some free money and start living again.

We are committed to immoral government. By electing a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, America told the world that we are tired of Republican morality. Republicans and their morality led to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, John Roberts, Enron, international condemnation and the Katrina debacle. Republicans took a stand against gay marriage and bad language in schools. What good did that do? Our economy is in the gutter and our currency is nearly worthless. America is sick and tired of Republican morality. Americans want change. They want immorality, vice, sodomy, decadence and deviance. We Democrats promise to deliver all that and more. We are not afraid to let men marry men or women marry women. We are not afraid to allow our children to smoke opium or praise homosexual relationships. We also firmly support unethical behavior. After all, Republican ethics gave us Enron and Alberto Gonzales. Ethics gave us scandal and embarrassment. We want change. That is why the Democratic Party promises to set new standards for unethical behavior in the new Century. Through immorality and wastefulness, we promise to save this country from ruin.

We live in desperate times. Unemployment has reached its highest level since the 1930s. People lose their homes every day. For many, the American dream has turned into a nightmare. But we can bring light back to America with wasteful spending. There is a reason why America’s economy failed last year. If it were not for eight years of Republican responsibility, frugality, decency, honor, ethics, morality and compassion, we would not be in the position we occupy today. Together, we can reverse these trends. Together, we can waste our money, act dishonorably, encourage premarital sex and condone recreational drug use. We will stem the tide. We will set a new standard for license, vice and irresponsibility. Responsibility and morality did not get the job done. It is time to give irresponsibility and immorality a chance. True, our country faces many challenges. Yet we believe that by allowing gay marriage, drug use and free access to government money, we can return America to its rightful place on the world stage.

After the Election last year, we all felt that we had turned a new page in American history. For the first time in decades, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. But now we must start to work on the dream we savored on Election Night. Join us as we strive to bring irresponsibility to America. Do your part. Spend money recklessly and borrow beyond your means. We do not have time for frugality, morality or decency. Do not act like a Republican. If you feel like going out and getting drunk, by all means go. If you feel like buying a Cadillac, by all means buy it. We will help you. Government is no longer here to condemn you as an immoral deviant; we are on your side now. We are immoral deviants, too. We are ready to give you the money you need. We are ready to waste money on your health care, your job and your unemployment insurance. We are ready to buy you free housing. Republicans made you take out crippling loans to get a college degree. But we are ready to give you a college education—for free. Put simply, if you need it, we will buy it for you, no questions asked. And do not be afraid to be who you are. Republicans made you feel ashamed for having sex and for smoking marijuana. Now, we encourage you to have fun in your life. We do not have time for responsibility anymore. Abstinence and sobriety do not work. As profligate Democratic wastrels, we enjoy life; and so should you. Let us all work together for a better America—a more irresponsible America.

Responsibility and decency created this mess. We Democrats intend to fight the recession with irresponsibility and shameful monetary waste from beginning to end. If you want free government handouts and you are a moral deviant, join us. If you want a free college education and you are a petulant freeloading drug user, join us. If morality offends you and you do not like torture, international law violations or the death penalty, we are the party for you. In the Democratic Party, we do not claim to be moral. We are immoral, we condemn torture, we respect international law and we oppose the death penalty. Still, we recognize that we live in a democracy. If you care about ethics, morality, decency and normalcy, vote Republican. But before you do, take a good hard look at what happened under George W. Bush’s ethical, moral and decent administration. Do you want more of the same? Of course not. Be a faithless profligate immoral deviant Democratic wastrel. Do not be afraid to accept free money. Do not be afraid to go to the doctor, even if you can’t afford it. Do not be afraid to get a college degree without debt. And do not be afraid to engage in debauched omnisexual adventures before, during and after marriage. The Democratic Party is on your side. We waste money. We condone immorality. We are irresponsible. We are deviant. And we will save this country.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS' STATEMENT ON THE OBAMA STIMULUS PACKAGE : WHAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE BAILOUT

By : Mr. John Boehner, B.S. (Business Studies) (R-OH), United States House of Representatives, Republican Leader

Earlier this week, the United States House of Representatives passed President Obama’s “stimulus package” over unified Republican opposition. The United States Senate followed suit, sending the bill to the President for signature. This is a sad day for America. Americans have no idea what this legislation will do. This is “tyranny by the majority;” and House Republicans will not stand for it.

We live in pressing times. All Americans want to overcome the financial crisis that has paralyzed Wall Street. In last year’s election, Americans foolishly chose Barack Hussein Obama to lead them through this crisis. Responding to hackneyed calls for “change,” Americans entrusted this monumental task to a political neophyte with African ancestry. Democrats made substantial gains in Congress, too, giving Obama a virtual “clean slate” to enact radical legislation. Americans clamored for rapid recovery. They clamored for unemployment insurance, health benefits, mortgage protection, child care and tax rebates. Congress obliged. Within weeks after Obama’s inauguration on January 20, they passed an enormous stimulus bill totaling $820 billion without a single tax cut for business.

Republicans led a principled stand against this waste. We argued that economic times may be desperate, but we refused to countenance any bill with more spending than tax cuts. After all, consumers and “average Americans” got themselves in this mess by spending beyond their means. It makes no sense to target innocent banks, lenders, credit card companies, business owners and manufacturers for the sins of the masses. Banks, business owners and manufacturers create wealth by offering employment. They cannot do that without tax cuts. Higher taxes mean fewer private sector jobs. Obama’s “stimulus” bill does not provide a single tax cut. Rather, it vilifies enterprising business owners and crushes them with taxes intended to benefit homeless mothers and abortion doctors. We Republicans voted against this tomfoolery. And we believe that Obama is leading America down a dangerous, un-American road.

Americans do not know the truth about this “stimulus package.” Like starry-eyed children, they trust Obama to save them from unemployment and bankruptcy. They blindly follow his every move like mice following the Pied Piper. They avert their eyes from the enormous changes he plans to make. The press exerts no check upon him; virtually every mainstream news network praises Obama for his “vision and direction.” Only FOX News fairly treats the issues. Sean Hannity, a commentator at FOX, ventured that the “stimulus bill” amounts to “socialism.” He is more right than he knows. Mainstream media outlets castigate House Republicans for “defying the Will of the People.” But they misunderstand us: We House Republicans are fighting for much, much more: We are fighting to protect life as we know it.

We believe it is our duty to inform the American public about the “stimulus package.” It is a veritable orgy of government spending that will upend the entire American social order. Nancy Pelosi and her leering Democratic minions mislead the public by claiming that the bill contains “poor relief, unemployment insurance, government assistance and private sector regulation.” These are gross mischaracterizations. In fact, as Sean Hannity hinted, the bill topples our free market system and replaces it with a communist State. Unless we act now, we will no longer live in a free democracy. We will live in a Soviet Republic.

Private enterprise drives this Nation’s prosperity. Any sensible economist knows that. Yet the “stimulus package” wages open war private enterprise. In little-known sections, the bill outlaws property ownership beyond $100,000 net worth per family. It also creates a “Federal Soviet Collectivized Farming Bureau” that will regulate how much grain individual farmers can harvest. The bill amends the Constitution to permit free abortions for any man or woman who wants one. Worse, the “stimulus package” creates a “People’s Soviet Health Network” in which every American citizen may obtain high-quality health care at no cost. Another section empowers a “Federal Soviet Wealth Equalization Commissar” to seize private land and transfer it to homeless beggars. Yet another section guarantees all Americans the right to employment at government expense, while another symbolically declares: “Economic recovery depends primarily upon the dignity and equality of every American.” To secure that “dignity and equality,” the bill abolishes corporations, promises free housing and creates a “Federal Soviet Food Distribution Commissariat” through which every American may receive hot meals at no cost.

Socialism? This is communist tyranny.

Americans deserve to know what Obama and his Democratic thugs are planning. At this very moment, the “stimulus package” awaits the President’s signature. We House Republicans attempted to slow him down, but to no avail. We tried our best to stop this bill. We believe that American have a right to know what “recovery” means in President Obama’s book. This bill does not just cripple industry with burdensome “green” regulations and mandatory unemployment insurance for workers. It also replaces the Star Spangled Banner with this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hOip2czWyw&feature=related. It mandates that the President publicly wear a fur ashanka hat—with a red star pin—during all public appearances. It also gives poor black mothers the opportunity to profoundly influence public policy through the “Poverty and Urban Issue Reconciliation Board,” which permits any unmarried black mother to decide on city budgets, public works projects, wages and work hours. By the same token, the bill empowers the Federal government to seize savings from white families and transfer them to black families. The bill allows black people to cut white people in any line in all 50 States. It abolishes the death penalty, labeling it a “medieval anachronism that sullies respect for the law and disproportionately affects racial minorities.” It replaces all white federal judges with unemployed black men who have served prison time. And it creates a mandatory presumption in all criminal statutes that a white person committed the crime, not a black one. In short, this bill proves Obama to be a radical race-baiter who aims to take revenge on white America for perceived injury to his ancestors. In a word, we must stop this attack on the American way of life; and time is running out.

America does not want communism. America just wants to get back to normal. Americans had no idea what Obama really meant when he said: “Change we can believe in.” Through skillful oratory, exploitation, well-told lies and a complicit press, Obama cleverly disguised his true intentions from the American people. American voters thought Obama would bring minor changes to their lives in order to restore their jobs and the free market economy. They had no idea that Obama meant a “change” from capitalism to communism. Americans do not want communism. They do not know how to live without worrying about bills, health care, wages, taxes, rent, heat and child support. They simply will not know what to do when the government starts providing them with free housing, medical care, food, laundry service, legal representation, babysitters, college education and even employment. Americans like to be worried about money. They like to know that they might not get a job, or that they might go bankrupt paying unforeseen medical bills. They like fending for themselves in a hard, free market. They like proving that “they can do it,” no matter how hopeless their circumstances may be. Uncertainty about money makes life risky and exciting. Americans like working three low-wage jobs in order to pay for their children’s needs. Under the “stimulus package,” they will suddenly face no more economic worries. This will be a profound shock. All psychologists agree that rapidly moving from “extreme anxiety” to “total calm” can cause dementia and even heart failure. Yet Obama ignores these risks. By solving Americans’ money worries overnight, Obama places millions of our citizens in direct physical danger. We Republicans fought to keep Americans worried about money. We regret to say that we failed.

But this is not the end. If you do not want to live in an Obamian-Marxist utopia, take to the streets. Tell Congress that you have been misled. Tell the government that you do not want to stop worrying about money. Tell the government that you refuse to give up your property to homeless black mothers and abortioneers. Tell the government that you would much rather spend your own $45,000 for a magnetic resonance image. Tell the government that you do not need a social safety net; you would rather be homeless than receive help from a monolithic government bureau that treats everyone equally. Tell the government that you do not want to stand trial before convicted black felons on the federal bench. And tell government that you would rather die than receive free, top-quality healthcare. You have a right to worry about money. You have a right to live in an unequal society. Obama threatens to take away your rights. How can you just sit there and let this happen? Do you want to be treated the same as ignorant immigrants, smelly beggars and homosexual, drug-addicted HIV patients? This is what Obama wants to do. Only you can stop him. Take to the streets now to stop tyranny before it overtakes our lives.

We do not have time to vote. Our democratic system has failed. We must remove Obama from power before he signs the “stimulus package.” Join House Republicans today in our effort to topple Obama before he alters America as we know it. Take a stand for your rights. This is not “change we can believe in.” This is communist revolution. Stand with us now to foil this fraud on the American people. And defend your right to own as much property as the free market permits. Let’s get back to normal.

JUSTICE THOMAS SPEAKS

By : Mr. Clarence Thomas (Republican), Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court; Former Head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Republican Connoisseur of Fine Adult Entertainment; Beneficiary of Affirmative Action Programs offered by Yale Law School and the Federal Government; Member, Federalist Society Section Against Affirmative Action

You don’t hear from me very often. I never say anything in Court. I never ask any questions. I just kind of sit there and gaze off into the gallery or read a novel in my lap while some dude rattles off about free speech. I let Justice Scalia do most of the talking. People call me an idiot, a mute, a dummy, a moron and an Uncle Tom. That hurts. But I don’t let the turkeys get me down. I have powerful friends; and I have everybody fooled. I might not know anything about the Constitution, but I sure know how to make it look like I know what I’m doing up here.

I’m a proud black Republican. There aren’t many of us, but we are a happy few. Black guys call me a “traitor to my race.” My predecessor—Thurgood Marshall—even called me “decidedly the wrong kind of negro.” They can yap all they want; look who’s in prison, and look who’s on the Supreme Court calling shots. They ain’t my brothers. I’m down with Bush, Roberts, Scalia and Cheney, fool. Call me crazy, but I like to know I’ll be taken care of. They needed a black man on the Supreme Court in 1991. George Bush the First was President in those days. He was a Republican. I am, too; and I’m black. Like I said, there aren’t many of us, so I stepped on in. They gave me a hard time in the Senate, but I made it, because there were more Republicans (51) than Democrats (48). They asked me what Supreme Court cases influenced me the most. I said: “I’ll need to think about that one for a minute.” In the end, I never answered, because I don’t know any Supreme Court cases. Even Strom Thurmond voted for me, the same guy who wanted to resegregate America in the 1950s. I guess he thought if a black man is a Republican, all is forgiven. It’s like he ain’t even black no more once he puts on the elephant button.

Harry Reid wanted to impeach me a couple years ago. He said I was “ig’nint” and didn’t know the Constitution from a hole in the ground. Player, please. I know what the Constitution is. It’s that thing we talk about, you know what I’m saying? Harry Reid is just an angry white racist Democrat trying to lynch a hard-working Republican black man. There were more Republicans than Democrats in Congress back then, so nobody impeached nobody. My Republican homies stepped up for me. Can I get my Republican brothers to put your hands in the air for Justice Thomas? Thank you very much. Much love to Senator Cornyn. I’ma keep on doing what I’m doing up in here, if you know what I’m taking about. Hells to the yizz-eah. We got this.

I do a lot more than people think. If you listened to the Democrats, you would think I’m a race traitor and a political hack. You would think I’m intellectually retarded and can’t write for shit. You might even think that someone else is doing my job, but I just show up and sit behind the bench. Look here, I ain’t lying: My law clerks do my writing. But I tell them what to write. I know what I know, and that’s what tells me how to decide a case. I know I don’t like affirmative action. I know I don’t like anything that helps a black man. And there ain’t no such thing as “discrimination.” When some lazy black man steps up and says his employer “discriminated” against him, I say: “No he didn’t. People don’t discriminate no more.” And I don’t let black men off the hook for anything in the world. Death penalty cases are my favorite. Like when some Georgia hoodlum named Billie or Willie says: “I didn’t do it.” I say: “Shit yes you did,” then I let the State execute him. This is what I’m talking about. Always it’s some black man saying life ain’t fair in the United States. They dead wrong. Look at me. I made it. Why can’t you? I got mine. You best get yours. Yeah, I had affirmative action to help me get where I’m at, but that don’t mean you should get it, too. Let me tell you black men something: Be a Republican. It worked for me. Maybe it will work for you.

It is not easy to be a Supreme Court justice. You need to have a particular facial expression when you walk into the courtroom. You need to look the part. And you need to look like you know what you’re doing. I don’t know anything about precedent or legal reasoning. But I sure as shit know how to look like I do. That’s hard work. That’s acting. I have rehearsed that serious stare in the mirror every day since 1990. When you peer into my eyes, it looks like I’ve read all the cases and thought about the briefs. But actually I was down at the Supreme Court cafeteria eating beef franks with my clerks. Justice Scalia can do the reading for both of us. Most of the time I just vote with him, anyway.

People say that I am Justice Scalia’s dog. Look, I do vote with Justice Scalia on the big cases, but I am my own man. I am tired of hearing that I’m just a lackey. I’m a black Republican, and that means I go beyond what Republicans expect. I am Republican plus. Just like Jackie Robinson had to be superstar plus, I have to be Republican plus. I don’t just decide against the liberals; I take superconservative positions. I say the federal government should not be able to regulate airlines. I say all black men should be executed without right to appeal. I say there is no more discrimination. I say States have no interest in correcting “racial imbalances” because there is already equality in this country. I say black people live in bad neighborhoods because they made “voluntary housing choices” to be there. I say the federal government cannot restrict advertisers from speaking, even when they are misleading. I say there should be no limit on campaign spending as long as the candidate is Republican. I say abortion is murder and a woman must bear the offspring of rape. I say welfare is waste. I say police should be able to search homes without warrants. And I say that the President can lock up anyone he wants without a reason. Justice Scalia may agree with me, but he does not go as far as I do. That’s because I am a black Republican. I need to achieve 200% to get 100%. He is white. He just needs to do the bare minimum to win. I need to go the extra mile; and I do. All in all, I agree with Justice Scalia on most things. I just am more Republican than he is because I’m black.

I love my job. No matter what the Democrats say, I’m in for life. I just turned 60. I have many more years to sit here and listen to arguments, take naps and tell my clerks what to do. The pay is pretty good and the food is great.

I am a little concerned about President Obama. He has publicly said that he believes in affirmative action and civil rights legislation. That puts us on a collision course, because I reject anything that helps black people, especially poor ones. America is equal; it’s right there in the Declaration of Independence. Government has no business doling out handouts to black folks. What you trying to say? That we need help because we're inferior? Just look at me. I made it. I don’t need anyone’s help, whether it’s from Obama or anyone else. I’m no different than any other black man. Obama and all the others just need to see that black men can succeed if they just join the Republican Party. Black people don’t need any more extra help. They are doing fine. They are equal to whites. When you treat black people better than whites, you hurt whites. This is an equal society. Allowing a black man to get into Harvard more easily denies a qualified white man a Harvard education. That ain’t right. It is unjust to treat white people unequally. Black people don’t need help if it hurts an innocent white man. And I’m going to continue saying that as long as I sit here listening to arguments while reading novels.

I get a bad rap. That is why I’m talking to you today. I’ve always said that I don’t speak much because listening is better than speaking. At least, that’s what I tell law school audiences. But I understand that some people might get the wrong idea about me because I don’t really say that much. I’m here to set the record straight. I am a black Republican. I am no race traitor. I got mine; you get yours. I don’t need anybody’s help. I have strong friends. I let other people write my opinions; I just tell them what to say in a nutshell. I like my job. I have it for life. I basically know what the Constitution is. I affirm death sentences for black men. I support religion in public life. I don’t like free speech, unless a company is speaking. And I never, ever give a black man a break. This is an equal society; they don’t need any help. Just look at me. Nobody discriminated against me; I made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Stop whining. If I can be a Supreme Court justice, so can you, whether you’re white, black, red, yellow, mullatto, Filipino, Colombian, Czech, crippled, blind, schizophrenic, ignorant, mute, deaf, retarded, dead, comatose or an ape. Just make sure you’re a member of the party that will confirm you.

It’s lunchtime. I need to get to the cafeteria. Peace out: That’s enough talk for the next few years.