After two years of investigation and argument, the chief counsel of the House ethics panel has recommended the punishment for Charles Rangel's financial misdeeds: censure!
AIYEEEE!!! (Sounds of chainsaws and the "Psycho" soundtrack)
No, wait - hang on a minute. Censure? As in, "shame on you?" For crimes (ahem, "misdeeds") that would put the rest of the peasantry in jail?
Rangel's defense for hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes was that he is a poor record keeper, that our tax laws (which he helps write) are too confusing, and he forgot he owned property in the Dominican Republic.
Meanwhile, NPR is doing its best to make "censure" sound like a much more serious penalty than scolding a child, by breathlessly pointing out that it is even worse than a "reprimand" or a "rebuke."
Of course, waterboarding is also worse that a "reprimand" or a "rebuke," so we can therefore assume that censure is equivalent to waterboarding.
With the exception that in Charles Rangel's case, only the logic is tortured.-
A remarkable thing has started to happen in the wake of the recent elections and rebuke of liberalism: people are beginning to talk about American Exceptionalism again. And unlike Barack Obama, they're doing it favorably.
The concept of American Exceptionalism is as broad as it is simple: the belief that when our national character is combined with our freedoms, values, and ability to innovate, wonderful things can happen in a way that they can't anywhere else on Earth.
Our history, albeit short on a global scale, gives ample evidence that this is true. Even though in other, more recent history, Barack Obama has traveled the world apologizing for the alleged damage done by the United States...and specifically degrading the notion of American Exceptionalism.
For this country to succeed and remain a dominant power for good in the world, we must first and foremost believe in ourselves. Not arrogantly...but confidently. And it isn't hard to look around and sense that it's starting to happen.
After two years of this president and his political party telling Americans that they're incapable of accomplishing great things, new voices are being raised to say the words Barack Obama least wants to hear: "Yes we can!"-
Just when Americans are getting angry about the government's increasing efforts to see them naked, Vogue magazine has decided that Michelle Obama deserves a place in their annual list of "best dressed" women.
And why not? In the words of one Vogue editor: "whether she is frolicking on the White House lawn in Converse or at an awards dinner in Michael Kors scarlet chiffon, she always looks elegant and appropriate to the occasion and to our modern times!"
Ooh - we just had a tingle go up our leg! Or maybe it was a TSA agent's hand...
Of course, for many Americans what is "appropriate for the occasion and to our modern times" is something comfortable to wear while in the unemployment line. Or perhaps a revealing open-backed hospital gown while waiting for Obamacare's alleged efficiencies and savings to kick in.
Still, as a symbol of our nation, it's important that our First Lady always look spectacular - and you just can't put a price on that. And if you try, Robert Gibbs will issue an official denial.
"Always elegant and appropriate"
To prove he's ready, willing, and able to handle the really tough questions, Barack Obama has agreed to an hour-long "very special interview" with Barbara Walters on the day after Thanksgiving.
Ms. Walters, who is legendary for asking probing questions like "what kind of a tree would you be" and showing the ugly side of estrogen on the liberal squawkfest "The View," will ask the president why he forced Obamacare on an unwilling public, why he was rebuffed at the G-20 economic summit, why the economy has nosedived on his watch, and ask why the Democrats who voted with him were spanked like red-headed stepchildren in November's elections.
No, no - we're only kidding! Barbara will ask what's on his iPod, what he had for Thanksgiving dinner, and what Malia and Sasha will be getting for Christmas.
And adding to the hard-hitting journalism of the hour, Michelle Obama will also be on hand, so that Ms. Walters can comment on the huge size of the first lady's yams. And no, we're not being rude - we saw pictures of the yams being harvested from the verdant Whitehouse fields and they were the size of garden gnomes.So mark your calendars now for this "must see" interview on the day after Thanksgiving. Which, entirely coincidentally, America's suffering merchants refer to as "Black Friday."--
On December 1st of this year, government payments to doctors performing Medicare services are scheduled to be cut by 23%...and predictably, neither doctors nor patients are happy about it.
Many doctors are saying they can no longer afford to take new Medicare patients (just when baby boomers are reaching Medicare age)...and other doctors are dropping Medicare patients entirely.
The cost-savings provided by slashing payments to doctors are, in part, what was supposed to make Obamacare into a "money saver" that would "bend the cost curve downward," back when the Democrats were still making those claims.
Of course, the other factor that was supposed to bring down costs was to make sure that everyone was required by law to participate in the new healthcare plans. In the words of Barack Obama, no one could opt out because "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you" which would raise costs for everyone else.
But that's exactly what's happening, now that the Obama administration has quietly (very quietly) issued waivers to 111 companies and unions to allow them to dodge the Obamacare bullet, which will affect the prices that everyone not in political favor will have to pay.
Of course, to issue all of those waivers in such a short time, the government obviously has the power to act quickly when it needs to. Meaning if nothing happens by December 1st, we can assume that potential destruction of the Medicare system is exactly what Obama administration wants.-
As surely as birds fly south for the winter and the swallows return to Capistrano, so too are the loons and lame ducks returning to Washington DC.
And in a desperate bid to continue wearing the feathered crown of her Democratic flock, Nancy Pelosi has officially announced that "we didn't lose the election because of me!"
Speaking to the ever-impartial NPR, the soon-to-be-former Speaker said the loss wasn't due to her arrogant pronouncement that "we have to pass the healthcare bill so you can see what's in it." It wasn't her pretentious tendency to use expensive, military aircraft as her personal shuttle service. And it wasn't her preposterous call for an anti-constitutional congressional investigation into the Tea Party movement, whom she likened to Nazis.
No, the real reason for the huge electoral defeat was...was..."$100 million of outside, unidentified funding" for opposing campaign ads!
Despite (or perhaps because of) this ludicrous claim, Nancy is struggling to retain the leadership of House Democrats, and a growing and vocal number of Dems are asking her to step down and walk away before she can do more damage to the party.
Because even lame ducks need a leg to stand on.-
There is good news for an American flying public that was sick of airport security insisting that they take off their shoes, remove their belts, pull off prosthetic legs, and hop into a full-body microwave for naked pictures.
And the good news is that those will be considered "the good old days" compared to what's being added to the TSA's security procedures: "Enhanced Pat-downs." Specifically, an "enhanced pat-down" means that passengers will be required to submit to a hands-on search of their body, with special attention to the breasts and genitalia.
The flying public is, unsurprisingly, furious about this...especially as the new policy also applies to children.
The reason for these new measures is quite simple: the best place for terrorists to conceal bombs is where no one wants or expects to be searched by hand - which is how the Underwear Bomber came close to blowing a jet out of the sky.
But is groping every man, woman, and child really the smartest way to combat this threat, or is it simply another way of avoiding the use of logical profiling measures to focus on who the most likely terrorists are?
Homeland Security needs to reject political correctness and start treating terror seriously... instead of just a ballgame.
-
