Monday, September 29, 2014

Monday, July 8, 2013

The Young Ladies Guide to Boys

It has been a long time since this blog was updated, and now it's time to have some fun.  Free advice, such as my biennial blogommendations to young voters, was fun.  But those didn't seem to help stem the Obama sewage tide.  This time I will offer unsolicited advice to young ladies.  I know quite a few young ladies, and boy do they need it.  I have discovered that I really don't approve of their suitors, none so far.  Mostly, they're the sort of little punks we used to call pikers.  What's more, the gals seem to entertain one scoundrel after the other.  I have no idea why they put up with them, but a little sweet horse-shit, and all is well.  Have we raised idiots?  Therefore, I will issue a set of rules in less than full confidence that they will be obeyed.  Punishments will follow, and my morale will improve.

                     Twelve Dumb Things Girls Do With Guys
                                                          (and vice versa)

1) Don't seek or tolerate the companionship of assholes.  They are, at their core, exactly what they appear to be.   Assholes aren't having a bad day.  It's who they are.  They don't partner with people; they consume them.  Do you want to spend your life playing head-games with a shit, who is charming (when he absolutely has to be), but really doesn't care about the pain he inflicts on you? 

2) Generalizations about individual people seem unfair, but people define themselves, and they tend to behave consistently over time.  Even if their behavior is unpredictable, it is usually consistently so.  Discrimination is good policy.  Learn the difference between: friendship vs crush, genuine vs cute, respect vs pity, depth vs charm, or quality vs comfort, and then substitute "go-to" and "run-from" to keep it simple.

3) Sociopaths, or garden variety assholes, are often charming, intelligent, and surprisingly deceptive.  But the mask eventually slips.  If a friendship starts to feel "wrong", even if it's hard to pin down why, something is probably "wrong".  When friendship starts to be a task, something is wrong.  Deception, rage, and cruelty are "run-froms".  Don't argue, sympathize, or try to "work it out".  Those are acts of acceptance.  Do not excuse difficult behavior.  Do not allow defective people into your life.

4) Guilting is the game of the sociopath.  It's a trick.  Do not tolerate men who try to make you responsible for their own failures or for the rocky nature of your relationship, and it will always be rocky.  Don't engage in this kind of manipulation unless you are a masochist, in which case, you were made for each other.

5) Do not accept abuse, verbal or physical, from anyone.  It isn't the alcohol, or the cocaine, or the tough schedule, and it isn't partly your fault.  It's the guy.  It's who he is, and it will absolutely keep happening.  There is no excuse, but there is a simple solution, the door.  Anything short of that is enabling.  If he keeps you around to be his bitch, it is entirely your fault.

6) Don't try to change people; they never change.  You can't fix him, even if you think there's a little boy inside who just needs a hug.  He doesn't act that way, because mama denied him the tit, and you can't be the new mama to take life's boo boos away.  He acts that way, because he basically doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.  That mind-set doesn't change.

7) If you "partner-up" with someone that is significantly dumber, meaner, or less motivated than you are, it's probably because he's comfortable.  Comfortable guys fool you.  In reality, you will both become increasingly angry every day of your lives, and eventually you will split.  He will hate you for wanting to move on, and you will hate him for holding you back.  The split will be painful for both of you and for everyone that depends on you.

8) Rich boys are often weak.  They often spend their lives on allowance while pretending they invented the Internet.  They resent their parents for keeping them weak and dependent, and they resent their wives for eventually noticing.  Usually, the wives end up hating all three of them and fucking the pool-man out of spite.  And he's way better in bed.  So why the middle man?

9) Poor boys come in two varieties, ones who won't be poor for very long, and ones who plan to ride your coat tails through life.  The former doesn't need sympathy, and the latter doesn't deserve it.  Talent, like cream, rises.  It really isn't difficult to distinguish between these two types.  They can't fool you, but you can fool yourself.

10) Do not permit people to "fall-in-love" with you and then try to make you feel obligated to love them back.  It sounds like this:  "You are bad, because you made me love you.  Now you have to love me back."  If you feel sorry for your guy, you are the wrong girl for him.  If he wants you to feel sorry for him, you have the wrong guy.

11) Don't search for another version of "daddy" (or mommy).  Your mom and dad courted 20 years before you were born, in theory.  Their advice is invaluable but might be slightly out of date.  Styles change.  What doesn't change is character.  Don't get sold on a lack-thereof, just because some guy rings your chimes.  Take your time.  Be very skeptical.  Crows pick up shiny trash.  Have an eagle eye. 

12) The time of your productive life is 6 dogs long.  It is your life.  Don't waste it on a dog.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Sunday, January 27, 2013

RICHARD (Dick for short) WINDSOR ?

This shocking tale is borrowed from Breitbart's Big Government and is reproduced here because it pisses me off.  If this was the only example of naked flaunting of the law in this administration, we could call it a mistake.  But it's everywhere.

 by George Landrith and Peter Roff

EPA Email Scandal Is Worse than Originally Thought

27 Jan 2013, 4:45 AM PDT 
We’re not talking about some alias to be used for personal correspondence but a totally false identity in whose name official business was allegedly conducted created specifically to avoid federal record-keeping and disclosure requirements. And none of this would ever have been uncovered were it not for the courage of a still anonymous whistleblower and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Christopher Horner, an attorney with the legal smarts and experience needed to unravel it all.  
Earlier this week, thanks to Horner’s good work, the EPA was supposed to produce the first installment of some 12,000 secret, previously undisclosed emails. Not because it wanted to but because a federal court order required it to.  
Under the order, the EPA was to provide the first installment of 3,000 e-mails with three additional installments of 3,000 e-mails to follow. Rather than provide the required emails, however, EPA’s cover letter accompanying its production of emails said it “produced more than 2,100 emails received or sent” by Jackson on an official alias e-mail account.  
All fine, well and good – except that not one of those emails was from “Richard Windsor’s” account. Not one. Yet it is certain the account exists because Horner found three Windsor emails using other means. Instead the EPA provided such absurdly silly and unresponsive e-mails as the daily news briefs published by the Washington Post, and EPA national news clippings, a pathetic attempt to avoid a contempt citation that came only after a week’s worth of unsuccessful attempts to push the official response date down the road.  
A pattern exists: the EPA creates a fake e-mail account for its administrator to avoid scrutiny; it doesn’t produce any of the fake e-mails even though they are required by law to do so; when specifically required by court order, the EPA seeks endless delays; and, when the delaying tactics prove fruitless, EPA fails to provide either the number or the type of e-mails required.  
To put it simply, the agency is trying to run out the clock, hoping against hope that people will lose interest and move on to something else.  This, in our judgment, must not be allowed to happen.  
The point of this scheme was to evade public accountability, to conduct official government business under the table, outside of the public eye. When Congress and others asked for Ms. Jackson’s EPA correspondence and email, the “Richard Windsor” e-mails would fall outside that request and, eventually, be destroyed allowing official EPA business to be conducted secretly. That falls well short of conducting business in the open and in a transparent fashion. It also falls well short of the standards required by federal law.  
If this were merely a matter of an official “alias” – e.g. instead of her “official” email name, it would be no big deal. But the “Richard Windsor” identity is not an alias: it is a totally fake persona obviously created to evade record-keeping and disclosure requirements.  It may not seem it on its face, but it an issue so serious that anyone who received a “Richard Windsor” email or corresponded with “Richard Windsor” – knowing it was Lisa Jackson and not reporting it, should at the very least be barred from succeeding her as administrator of the EPA.  
"Despite EPA's 'everyone does it' line -- the lesser-known, somewhat inconsistent subtitle to 'most transparent administration, ever' -- Richard Windsor appears to be the first false identity assumed to hide a senior federal official's public records,” Horner says. “One reason for this might be that it's against the law. The readiness with which we already know other administration officials, including lawyers, accepted the practice suggests Windsor wasn't the only such false identity Obama officials have created to subvert federal record-keeping and disclosure laws."  
Yes, America, this e-mail scandal is worse than originally believed. Far worse. And if “everyone does it” in this Administration as the EPA has claimed, President Obama needs to answer some questions as well.  And the United States Senate, which has slew of presidential nominees to confirm in the next few months, has the obligation to start asking.  

George Landrith is president of Frontiers of Freedom, a Virginia-based public policy organization. Peter Roff is a senior fellow at FOF.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

DARKNESS AT NOON, a review by George Orwell

I pinched this timely little Obamination from 3 Quarks Daily, where I snoop daily, and I recommend you do it too.  Not sure where he pinched it.

"For what am I fighting?": George Orwell on Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon"

Arthur Koestler at home in Austria
Arthur Koestler at home in Austria in 1967. Photo: Getty Images.
"Darkness at Noon" (1940) dramatises the Moscow show trials and Stalin’s "Great Purge" of Old Bolsheviks. In his review for the New Statesman, Orwell praised Koestler’s “inner knowledge of totalitarian methods”: “The common people,” argues the Party operative Gletkin, “cannot grasp ‘deviation’ is a crime in itself; therefore crimes of the sort they can understand – murder, train-wrecking and so forth – must be invented.” Many see Rubashov’s confession as a direct influence upon Winston Smith’s.

Orwell used his review as an opportunity to chastise the left-wing press in Britain for their refusal to speak up; a powerful statement made two years after Kingsley Martin refused to publish his despatches from Spain, fearing they would appear critical of Stalin, and therefore socialism: “What was frightening about these trials was not that they happened – for obviously such things are necessary in a totalitarian society – but the eagerness of Western intellectuals to justify them.”

Mr Arthur Koestler should know something about prison, for he has spent a respectable proportion of the past four years there. First a long stretch in one of Franco’s fortresses, with the sound of firing squads ringing through the walls twenty or thirty times a day; then a year or so of internment in France; then escape to England, and a fresh internment in Pentonville – from which he has just been unconditionally released, however. In no case, needless to say, has he been accused of any particular crime. Nowadays, over increasing areas of the earth, one is imprisoned not for what one does but for what one is, or, more exactly, for what one is suspected of being. Still, Mr Koestler can congratulate himself on having hitherto fallen only into the hands of amateurs. If England imprisoned him, it at any rate let him out again, and did not force him beforehand to confess to poisoning sheep, committing sabotage on the railways or plotting to assassinate the King.

His present novel, fruit of his own experiences, is a tale of the imprisonment, confession and death of one of the Old Bolsheviks, a composite picture having resemblances to both Bukharin and Trotsky. The events in it follow the normal course. Rubashov, one of the last survivors of the original Central Committee of the Communist Party, is arrested, is charged with incredible crimes, denies everything, is tortured and is shot in the back of the neck. The story ends with a young girl in whose house Rubashov has once lodged wondering whether to denounce her father to the Secret Police as a way of securing a flat for herself and her future husband.

Almost its whole interest, however, centres about the intellectual struggle between three men, Rubashov himself and the two GPU officers, Invanov and Gletkin, who are dealing with his case. Ivanov belongs to the same generation as Rubashov himself and is suddenly purged and shot without trial in the middle of the proceedings. Gletkin, however, belongs to the new generation that has grown up since the Revolution, in complete isolation both from the outside world and from the past. He is the “good Party man,” an almost perfect specimen of the human gramophone. Ivanov does not actually believe that Rubashov has committed the preposterous deeds he is charged with. The argument he uses to induce him to confess is that it is a last service required of him by the Party. The common people, he says, cannot grasp that “deviation” is a crime in itself; therefore crimes of the sort that they can understand – murder, train-wrecking and so forth – must be invented.

Gletkin uses the same argument, but his attitude is somewhat different. It is never certain whether he believes Rubashov to be guilty or not; or, more exactly, no distinction between guilt and innocence exists in his mind. The only form of criticism that he is able to imagine is murder. As he sees it, anyone capable of thinking a disrespectful thought about Stalin would, as a matter of course, attempt to assassinate him. Therefore, though the attempt at assassination has perhaps not been made, it can be held to have been made; it exists, like the undrawn production to a line. Gletkin’s strength lies in the complete severance from the past, which leaves him not only without pity but without imagination or inconvenient knowledge. On the other hand, it was the weakness of the Old Bolsheviks to have remains Europeans at heart, more akin to the society they overthrew than to the new race of monsters they created.

When Rubashov gives in and confesses, it is not because of the torture – he has suffered worse at the hands of the Nazis without confessing – so much as from complete inner emptiness. “I asked myself,” he says at his trial, almost in Bukharin’s words, “‘For what am I fighting?’” For what, indeed? Any right to protest against torture, secret prisons, organised lying and so forth he has long since forfeited. He recognises that what is now happening is the consequence of his own acts – even feels a sort of admiration for Gletkin, as the kind of subhuman being probably needed to guide the Revolution through its present stage.

The Moscow trials were a horrible spectacle, but if one remembered what the history of the Old Bolsheviks had been it was difficult to be sorry for them as individuals. They took the sword, and they perished by the sword, as Stalin presumably will also, unless he should happen to die prematurely, like Lenin.

Brilliant as this book is as a novel, and a piece of brilliant literature, it is probably most valuable as an interpretation of the Moscow “confessions” by someone with an inner knowledge of totalitarian methods. What was frightening about these trials was not the fact that they happened – for obviously such things are necessary in a totalitarian society – but the eagerness of Western intellectuals to justify them. Correspondents of Liberal newspapers pronounced themselves “completely satisfied” by the confessions of men who had been dragged into the light after, in some cases, years of solitary confinement; an eminent lawyer even produced a theory that the loss of the right to appeal was a great advantage to the accused!

The simultaneous cases in Spain, in which exactly the same accusations were made but no confessions obtained, were sedulously covered up or lied about in the Left-wing press. It was, of course, obvious that the accused in the Russian cases had been tortured or threatened with torture, but the explanation is probably more complex than that. Mr Koestler thinks that, “for the good of the Party”, was probably the final argument.

 As a piece of writing it is a notable advance on his earlier work.

4 January 1941

Flea demonstrates how to "Slap" on a Fleabass!

Wednesday, January 9, 2013



Melissa Harris Perry (MSNBC) On Cabinet Diversity: Clarence Thomas Doesn't Represent Blacks

It's possible that Melissa isn't aware that Clarence Thomas is not a member of the President's Cabinet nor is he member of Congress.  He is a Justice of The Supreme Court.  As such, he "represents" all of the people, who enjoy the benefits of The Constitution and who accept its responsibilities.  In other words, it's color blind, unlike MS Perry. These attacks on the The Constitution are cropping up all over the place, aren't they.

‘Give me a phone book and I’ll find somebody more qualified’ Kudlow on Lew as Treasury secretary

Not to worry, Larry.  George Soros will run Obama's Treasury, but it's probably more accurate to say that George Soros is letting Obama run his country.  This is a smash-face declaration of war on the Constitution and the law of the land.  The democrats are out in the open now.  And republicans are still wondering around in search of someone to compromise with.  How can they be so stupid?

The 2013 Father of The Year?  And the winner is, according to The National Father`s Day Committee, William Jefferson Clinton!  Who the hell is the National Father's Day Committee, you ask?  Well, the winner in 2007 was John Edwards, in 2009 it was Stephen Stephanopolous, and in 1010 it was David Gregory.  Nuff Said.

Jonah Goldberg is calling the Hagel nomination for Sec-Def a "petty pick" as if Obama is merely thumbing his nose by nominating an unpopular republican.  Guess again Jonah.  The who of the Sec-Def is not important from a policy standpoint.  The policy will be Obama's, and Hagel will have to veer right to get there.  Hagel is being nominated, and he will eventually pass, to have a ruthless, anti-military, cost-cutter to catch the slings and arrows for the decimation of the Defense Budget that Obama promised Putin.  Hagel is a double Purple-Heart veteran.  Nobody on the committee will have the cred to attack his military credentials.  It also helps, that he is combative and "in-your-face" when it comes to public debate.  He isn't looking for higher office, and republican fratricide is just icing on the cake.  Israel is in very big trouble, Lanny.  Advantage Obama.

House Rep Paul Ryan asks Obama if he will submit a budget request to Congress this year.  Is he kidding?  Is there any republican on the planet who get's it?  Custom, precedent, professional courtesy, THE LAW?  It means nothing to Obama.

Egyptian Press Confirms Washington Infiltrated By Islamists
Who knew?

Congressional democrats call for "Executive Order" to deal with impasse over: 1) debt ceiling  2) gun control.  And counting.

Bill Clinton designated as father-of-the-year.  Hollywood is casting the new bio-pic RODHAM.  New York rep introduces legislation to eliminate the 22nd Amendment.  Which one will be VP?  Are the dems laying groundwork?

Sens Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz lament Obama's (new?) unwillingness to seek "compromise" with Congress.  Mitch and Ted have no idea who they are dealing with.  Compromise?  Obama intends to demonize, debilitate, dominate, and annihilate Congress, and so far he is succeeding.  Congress, like the Constitution, is in his way.

Krauthammer warns ´in a second term, Obama is going to show who he really is´
Who knew?

Meet The ´Bullies´: Breitbat Editor Exposes Obama´s Army of Thugs
In New Book

The list is too short, but the idea works.  These are the remnants, and the charter members, of the Journolist.  It would be fun to run a blog that tracks their talking-point utterances in individual threads, like episodes of "Sex in the City".  Keep track of who gets what assignment from Axelrod.  You could plot the revolution.

McConnell say's they're "off the table" (again)
Wana bet? Does the bear shit in the woods?
Obama is going to demagogue "loopholes" (again)
McConnell is going to call for cutting entitlements.
Guess who wins? (again)


This tidbit is copied from the Washington Free Beacon.  Read the original and the rest of their good works here.

National Labor RICO Board

Lawsuit accuses Obama appointee of embezzlement cover-up

NLRB's Richard Griffin /
NLRB's Richard Griffin /

A recent lawsuit filed in a federal court in California alleges that National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Richard Griffin was complicit in a scheme to cover up embezzlement at a major labor union by terminating employees who attempted to expose the effort.
The allegations appear in a lengthy complaint filed against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). The lawsuit alleges numerous violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and names Griffin, IUOE’s former general counsel, as a defendant.
President Barack Obama controversially appointed Griffin to the NLRB in January 2012 in a move some observers described as illegal. He never faced confirmation hearings or standard background checks.
According to the lawsuit filed by 10 members of Los Angeles-based IUOE Local 501, which represents workers in Southern California and Southern Nevada, Griffin participated in a conspiracy to manipulate the operation of Local 501 “through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
Griffin was served with the complaint and a court summons relating to the lawsuit at his Washington, D.C., home on Dec. 4, according to documents filed in court.
The complaint states that in 2009, James McLaughlin, then the business manager of Local 501, began investigating suspicious expenditures by Dennis Lundy, a Local 501 member who was in charge of the union’s apprenticeship fund. McLaughlin suspected Lundy was embezzling money from the fund.
McLaughlin demanded that Lundy repay about $4,000 to the fund after an independent audit, which Lundy refused to do. The investigation caught the attention of IUOE’s general president, Vince Giblin, reportedly a friend of Lundy’s.
Giblin demanded that McLaughlin drop the investigation. The latter refused. According to the lawsuit, Giblin would later tell another Local 501 official, “I told [McLaughlin] to make that Lundy thing disappear and he never did. That lazy fat f*** has got to go!”
Giblin threatened to place Local 501 into the trusteeship of the IUOE unless McLaughlin two other Local 501 officials assisting the Lundy investigation resigned.
Griffin served as Giblin’s point man during much of the back-and-forth with McLaughlin, according to the complaint, earning him a spot on the lawsuit’s list of defendants. The court filing repeatedly refers to IUOE’s demands as coming directly from Griffin and cites “threats, communicated from Giblin through” Griffin.
He communicated to McLaughlin’s legal counsel that in order for IUOE to “leave Local 501 alone,” McLaughlin would not only have to resign, but also fire Finn Pette, his protégé and partner in the Lundy investigation.
When McLaughlin refused, Griffin reportedly targeted a third Local 501 member involved in the investigation.
McLaughlin later attempted to negotiate a successor as Local 501’s business manager to take over upon his retirement. Griffin personally communicated that two of his preferred successors were “unacceptable,” as McLaughlin’s counsel put it.
The lawsuit cites these events in its claim that the defendants, including Griffin, “each personally plotted, conspired, and agreed” to attempt to direct the affairs of Local 501 “through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
The lawsuit seeks $7.5 million in damages for a host of RICO violations as well as for violations of the Labor Management and Disclosure Act and charges of aiding and abetting.
An NLRB spokesperson referred questions to Griffin’s attorney, Frederic Woocher, of the Los Angeles litigation firm Strumwasser & Woocher LLP. Woocher called the allegations “preposterous” and said the “frivolous lawsuit” was brought by “a couple of folks who were unhappy with their position in the union.”
The IUOE did not respond to requests for comment.
Griffin’s alleged involvement with some of IUOE’s criminal elements has drawn scrutiny from top lawmakers. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, sent a letter to Griffin in July asking about ties to members of union locals convicted of various crimes during his time at the IUOE.
Hatch also asked for a “detailed list” of all issues on which Griffin had worked pertaining to “fraud, embezzlement, or other financial misconduct” by officials at IUOE or its locals.
Griffin’s response did not mention specific instances of wrongdoing at the International. He told Hatch that he “promoted a culture and practice of the highest ethical standards, and strengthened the internal mechanisms for dealing with criminal conduct” during his time at the union.
The letter also failed to mention Local 501.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Dear Senator Dianne Feinstein,

 Every now and then we are reminded that the progressives haven't won YET.  The following letter has gone viral.  I post it in celebration.  The only part I disagree with is the phrase "respectfully submitted".  That part sticks in my craw.  FU Di Fi!

And Amen Brother.


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.

You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps


Wednesday, December 26, 2012



Tis the night after Christmas, and all through the house not a creature is stirring, except me.  I'm waiting up for rampaging college holiday celebrants, hoping they get their asses home in some kind of sentient state.  Good luck.  And those words are my Holiday message for the following: Californians, American citizens (so far law abiding), legal voters, taxpayers (by definition not paying their fair share), (greedy) people who have saved for their own retirement, owners of 401ks and IRAs, owners of homes, small businesses or farms, and people who offer wages to their fellow citizens (a mere pittance) for their time and effort.  To all of you, the losers, I say: "Good Luck".  Like my joyful wassailing dependents, I fear that many of you are fiddling while the seed corn burns.  Some of you think it's buttered popcorn.  Hold the butter.  You will be needing it soon.

I am told by the professional "tellers", who are told what to tell, that a financial cliff yawns in the path of this ungrateful nation, and that only Obama can save us.  He is magnanimous.  He is prepared to save us in spite of our folly.  His disloyal opposition, the Republican Party, is in disarray, to put it humanely, and has made it unnecessary for the ex-republicans to explain our defection, ever again.

What cliff?  If this brilliantly executed Red Herring has you confused, don't be.  The Cliff is nothing more than a clever maneuver to raise your tax rates, cap your deductions, and start the process of confiscating your savings through the tax code.  And to split the hapless republicans into two or three circular firing squads.  And to allow the Time Magazine Man of the Year to save us.  And doesn't he look a lot like Moses?  Remember what Rohm said about never wasting a crisis?  And if there isn't a crisis handy?  Create one, and blame it on the republicans.  The plan has worked a treat so far.

On Thursday, Obama returns to Washington to execute the kill.  His handlers, and the republican enablers, have all the ducks in a row.  Poor little overwhelmed John Boehner thought he was playing a gentleman's game.  Maybe it's The Karl Rove Disease, all catching, no pitching.  He's lost the first battle, so he's going to surrender the war.  Maybe it's the French disease.  I hope they give him another cigarette with his blindfold.

Just when the country needs leadership, patient, mature, thoughtful, intelligent leadership, we have a complete lack thereof.  They're not smart, and they aren't brave.  There is no fight in these placeholders, these mediocrities, these fair-weather statesman.  They are reading polls, probably ginned up by the democrats. They are worried about getting reelected two years before the next election.  Did I mention articulate?  Does Boehner and articulate belong in the same sentence?  OK, fighters aren't orators, but this our fighter?

Don't weep with him, or for him.  This isn't Billy Budd, a victim of cruel fate.  This is Sponge Bob in search of his nicotine patch.  This is clueless pathos posing as tradition.  That we are here today is testament to the fact that we were not represented by such as these at Valley Forge, that such as these were not called upon at Pickett's Charge, at Omaha Beach, at Inchon. 

Alas, the House republicans have dropped their knickers.  It's up to Harry Reid's Senate to set the stage.  Are you ready for a "balanced" approach?  Christmas may be over, but Santa Claus is coming back to town!  What's the plan?  Is there a republican answer, or a message from their leaders?  Will a clear voice ring out and speak a truthful, coherent word?  Can they explain their thoughts?  Are there thoughts?

The answer is no, a resounding no.  Next week will see the flowering of the Alinsky dream.  The Podesta/Axelrod axis has routed the weepy defenders of The Constitution.  And that is where the playbook ends.  Cleaning up the mess didn't make the book.  The democrats will make it up on the fly.  And they are unopposed.

 It's beyond sad.  It's time to go.