Voter Voted To Change The Nation's Diaper!

America releases terrorists and they return to kill more American troops. When it comes to Israel, however, America urges Israel not to release Palestinian prisoners, in exchange for Cpl Shalit, because it will undercut Fatah, Abbas and negotiations for a Palestinian State.

What is also interesting is how citizens of Illinois would, no doubt, protest storage of toxic nuclear waste in their state but clamor for toxic humans to be incarcerated in their prisons because it allegedly creates employment.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored I guess and Netanyahu's hard choice. (See 1 and 1a below.)

Steven Rosen suggests Mitchell has closed many gaps between Netanyahu and Abbas and Netanyahu has made significant concessions thereby putting the ball on Abbas' side of the net. No matter how many gaps are closed the Palestinians will open new ones. Once they get what they want they seek more. It is a negotiating ploy they have honed over the years and Western nations willingly accommodate. Our State Department never learns.(See 2 below.)

Lloyd Marcus writes: 'with friends like Liberals, blacks do not need enemies.' Victim hood and an inability to make it on your own are standard components of Liberal compassion. Lloyd is black and raises some interesting issues. (See 3 below.

Voters concluded the nation's diaper needed changing so they voted Obama in as president. Little did they know the health care diaper they would get is full of change. (See 4 below.)

Now for some blonde jokes that are easier to understand perhaps not as funny but certainly smell better than Congress, their recent voting record and the nation's new health care diaper. (See 5 below.)

Dick


1)PM Netanyahu pushed by Israeli intel, US, Egypt to reject Shalit-Palestinian prisoner swap

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has until Monday morning, Dec. 21, to deliver a final decision on whether to go through with the deal with Hamas for trading nearly a thousand Palestinian prisoners for the Israeli sergeant Gilead Shalit who has been in captivity more than four years.

Monday morning, the security cabinet will hold its fourth session on the issue in 24 hours. Gilead Shalit's parents have won enormous popular support for the determined campaign they have run on behalf of their son whom Hamas kidnapped in a cross-border incursion. It is endorsed by many servicemen and their parents.

However, sources report that heavy counter-pressure to reject Hamas' latest offer is coming from Israeli intelligence agencies, the United States and Egypt, which sent its intelligence minister General Omar Suleiman to Jerusalem Sunday to urge the Israeli government to hold back from the deal, because it would give Hamas a cheap victory.

US president Barack Obama instructed US Middle East envoy George Mitchell to lean hard on the Israeli government. He has been on the phone repeatedly with the prime minister and defense minister's offices to warn them that giving in to Hamas would sign the death warrant of Middle East peacemaking.

Noam and Aviva Shalit were on hand in Jerusalem awaiting an imminent decision. They poste an emotional message to the prime minister: "Our heart tells us that the negotiations have reached a point of no-return and the fate of our beloved son Gilead is close to a decision. We are therefore appealing to you before it is too late." Netanyahu has promised to see them Monday.

Gen. Suleiman called on defense minister Ehud Barak and president Shimon Peres as Netanyahu's closest advisers with the following message:

"You Israelis have gone completely mad. We are making every effort possible to force Hamas to bury the hatchet with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. We are building an iron barrier deep underground to block arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. Then, at the critical moment, you come along and offer Hamas a life-saver for backing away from a Palestinian reconciliation!"

For the last four days, Hamas snipers have been firing at the Egyptian teams working on Iron Blind in the border town of Rafah. Yet the work goes on.

Sources disclose the only problem standing in to the way of an Israel-Hamas prisoner deal is the destinations of the scores of hard-core terrorists "with blood on their hands" expecting to be freed. Israel wants them all removed from the country, while Hamas agrees to exile only a small number.

1a) Decision Time: Don’t envy Netanyahu
By Shimon Shiffer

Benjamin Netanyahu once recounted how he lost his sense of taste for several weeks while grieving for his brother, Yoni, who was killed in the operation to free hostages in Uganda in 1976.



The main lesson that could have been learned from the operation to release the hostages was that Israel does not give in to terror and is unwilling to be blackmailed. If we take this example further, we will reach the conclusion that had the government been willing to negotiate with the abductors at the time, Yoni Netanyahu may have been alive today.


As seven-minister cabinet holds marathonic meetings on deal meant to secure release of captive soldier, both those pushing for prisoner exchange and those vehemently opposing it know moment of truth is near
Full story



Benjamin Netanyahu dedicated many years in an effort to impart his lessons to Israelis and to the international community. He wrote books where he advised the Western world on the war against terror. Another, less familiar, aspect of Netanyahu’s personality also has to do with bereavement: In phone conversations and visits he holds at the homes of families who lost their loved ones, he displays deep interest in the mourners and stuns them when his eyes grow teary while hearing stories about their loss.



Netanyahu devoted this past weekend to analyzing the various implications of the decision he needs to make: Pay the terrible price required for Gilad Shalit’s release, or reject the offer and justify it by referring to the responsibility he bears as prime minister – mostly the responsibility to weigh the implications of a decision to release hundreds of murderers from Israeli jails.



The Shalit precedent
Saturday night, Netanyahu’s close aides arrived at his residence. He listened to them without hinting which way he leans. We will not exaggerate if we say that the responsibility born by Netanyahu at this time cannot be compared to anything else: Every decision he makes will influence bereaved families, Israelis who serve in the security forces, and many others.




Since the day Netanyahu embarked on his second term in office, he has been forced to make moves that contradict his basic worldview. First it was the settlement construction freeze, and now it’s the release of terrorist murderers.



Will Netanyahu hurl the principles he believed in for years into the garbage bin of history? Will he listen to the Shalit family’s cry? All the talk about Israel limiting the number of prisoners it would be willing to release in future swaps is worthless: The next deal will be premised on the Shalit precedent.



Yet there is one thing we can all agree on: There is no need to envy Netanyahu at this time.





2)The Mideast Peace Deal You Haven't Heard About
By Steven J. Rosen


For a year or two at an early stage in his career, I commuted to and from our adjacent offices each morning and evening with Martin Indyk, later a top peace-process official of the Clinton administration at the Camp David negotiations and now vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. I had just left the Rand Corporation to work at AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington.

Even in those pre-Oslo days of 1982 to 1983, Martin was a True Believer in the idea of a grand land-for-peace bargain between Israel and moderate Palestinians. Reviewing each day the latest installments in the Middle East epic as we rolled down Rock Creek Parkway, we argued all the way. I heaped scorn on any solution that required Israel to trust Palestinian intentions, and I held that Israel's security could only be based on a qualitative military edge and the balance of power. I told Martin that he and our mutual friends Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, and Dan Kurtzer, though with the noblest of intentions, were pursuing an illusion.

Martin emphatically thought I was wrong about the Middle East, and he also thought I was blind to an enduring reality in Washington. He said that Democratic and Republican administrations of the left and right may come and go, and some presidents will have less confidence in Middle East peacemaking than others, but no U.S. president will be able to sustain a policy of benign neglect of the peace process for long. The American people, the United States' European allies, and U.S. friends in the Arab world all need to have a ray of hope. They need to believe that active diplomacy under U.S. leadership is bringing closer a resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, because it is a conflict that roils other American interests and destabilizes U.S. relations in the region and throughout the world. Martin often cited our friend, the late Peter Rodman, who taught us that U.S. policy in the Middle East is a bicycle. You can keep your balance if you roll forward even at a snail's pace, but if you try to stand still you will fall off.

Martin never did succeed in converting me to the peace camp, but over time I saw the undeniable evidence that he was right about the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy. Sooner or later, every president turns to the peace process, and the Mideast advisors who move to the president's inner circle are the ones he thinks have the best ideas about how to move forward toward a contractual peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

I think Benjamin Netanyahu has gone through a personal evolution a little like my own. He continues to be profoundly skeptical that signing a piece of paper can put an end to this conflict. He is a fierce advocate of defensible borders and military strength as the true guarantors of Israel's security. Nevertheless, he has come back to a second term as prime minister with a deeper appreciation of the reality that his relations with the United States, Europe, and moderate Arab neighbors depend on the perception that he can be a partner in the search for diplomatic progress with the Palestinians. And he certainly knows that many harbor doubts about him.

That is why Bibi agreed to do something unprecedented, something that six previous Israeli prime ministers since the 1993 Oslo Accords (Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu himself in his previous term) refused to do. Very much against the will of his party and coalition, Netanyahu consented to putting a freeze on "natural growth" of settlements. He has drastically curtailed the volume of construction starts, even in the "consensus" settlement blocs that he believes were conceded to Ariel Sharon by George W. Bush.

Now, below the radar, Netanyahu is making a series of additional concessions to Barack Obama and his Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell. Their current priority is negotiating "terms of reference" to permit the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (TORs in negotiators' vernacular). Dismissed by some as mere "talking about talking," TORs are in fact vital elements to create the parameters for serious negotiations. For example, then-Secretary of State James Baker shuttled around the region for eight months to negotiate the TORs that made the 1991 Madrid conference possible. All that was done just to phrase a letter of invitation that all sides could accept. The result was far from trivial; it was a framework that opened the way to all the direct negotiations that followed over the ensuing two decades.

Mitchell's challenge today is to define such a framework that can bridge differences between Netanyahu and his Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas. Defying skeptics who say you can bridge a river but not an ocean, Mitchell keeps going at it, and his perseverance is paying off. While no one was watching, Netanyahu has in fact agreed to language that Mitchell can accept. With the Israeli agreement in his pocket, Mitchell is now working to bring Abbas around, according to sources close to the discussions.

The issues are not small. Abbas wants to enshrine the 1967 boundary as sacrosanct, even though that line was merely a military demarcation after the war that ended in 1949 and had never been recognized by the Palestinians or anyone else as a legal border. Reflecting the Israeli consensus, Netanyahu insists that future agreed frontiers have to meet Israel's security imperatives and reflect post-1967 demographic realities, whether or not they diverge from the former armistice line. But Netanyahu has accepted a solution based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's formulation: "an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

Abbas wants Israeli territorial concessions in Jerusalem as a precondition for negotiations. Netanyahu has accepted that the Palestinians will bring their claims for Jerusalem to the table, but he is not going to make this or any other concession just to bring Abbas to negotiate. Mitchell's TORs will include implementation of all existing agreements between the parties, as well as the 2003 "Roadmap" for a two-state solution. These already define Jerusalem as a subject for discussion.

Abbas wants an absolute two-year deadline for the achievement of a permanent agreement. Netanyahu is accepting target dates for agreements, but he does not believe achievement can be guaranteed. Mitchell has the language he needs for the TORs regarding target dates.

Abbas wants language that obliges Israel to repatriate and compensate descendents of Palestinians who lost their homes in the upheavals before 1949. Netanyahu has agreed to participate in multilateral solutions for this "refugee" problem, provided these solutions do not include an obligation that will dilute Israel's own Jewish majority. Mitchell will point out that a solution to the refugee question is already incorporated in the documents to which the TORs will refer.

Abbas wants the 2002 Saudi-initiated Arab Peace Initiative to be the basis of negotiations. Netanyahu has agreed to have it listed among the references, though it is not among the signed agreements whose specific terms are binding. In any case, the Roadmap already contains a positive reference to the Saudi peace plan, and the Roadmap will be a major source document for the TORs.

The Palestinians eschew the concept of interim agreements because they fear that any temporary arrangements will become final. Israel believes that interim steps are a necessity for building confidence between the two parties. The Roadmap's Phase II already contains "the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty," and the Oslo Accords are replete with interim steps. This will not be an obstacle to agreed TORs.

Mitchell has not announced the agreement with Netanyahu because delicate negotiations with Abbas still lie ahead. He did say on Nov. 25, "We have been in discussions with both Israelis and Palestinians for some time regarding terms of reference for negotiations. We have closed many gaps between them. And while admittedly important differences remain, we've made very substantial progress."

Now, a month later, the work on the Israeli side is done. Netanyahu has put the ball in the Palestinian court.

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum.


3)Libs Scold Black Conservatives
By Lloyd Marcus

A young married couple, Paul and Nancy, were neighbors of mine back in the seventies. Nancy was extremely excited because an unexpected opportunity arose for her to attend college. This would broaden her horizons and enable her to pursue opportunities beyond her then-current minimum-wage jobs. Paul was dead set against it. He confided in me, "I'm afraid if she gets educated, she may not want me anymore." I thought, So rather than allowing Nancy, whom you profess to love, to be all she can be, you would prefer to keep her down.


In the eighties, I was a member of a team of six artists at a Baltimore TV station. They hired a new kid. Jeff was talented, enthusiastic, and ambitious. Whenever someone came into the art department with a request and our supervisor was unavailable, (while other artists ignored them, thinking it's not my job), Jeff stepped up and took care of them. Jeff's attitude caused tension between him and our union. While the union could not nail Jeff for doing anything outside of the restrictions of our contract, the consensus was that he was too friendly with management and too eager to benefit the company. The real conflict was that Jeff's nature drove him to excellence, but our union encouraged group mediocrity.


I share these two stories as examples of attempts to stifle personal greatness. Folks, liberals (black and white) have been stifling black American individuality and greatness for years through a deceptive shroud of compassion. In reality, liberals' true attitude towards independent blacks is, "Who the heck do you think you are? How dare you achieve success without us?"


Liberals use intimidation and punishment to rein in blacks who bypass their formula for success. Dr. King believed in personal responsibility. He required his fellow marchers to be clean, sober, and even-tempered. He marched and gave his life for fairness, not special concessions.


The liberal media celebrates black achievement only when it comes from an I made it in spite of America's racism point of view. Blacks who proclaim, "I achieved because America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it" are vilified by the media, branded Uncle Toms and traitors to their race.


The Left's message is clear. To be authentically black and faithful to their race, blacks must not achieve on their own. They must view themselves as eternal victims and reserve at least a minimal resentment against white America.


While in the supermarket checkout line, I saw Rev. Al Sharpton, the poster child of the "America Sucks for Blacks" campaign, on the cover of Ebony magazine. Gag me.


I searched the internet. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas have never been featured on the cover of Ebony. Think about that. Before the election of Obama, the two most powerful blacks in America (Rice was the also most powerful woman in the world) have never graced the cover of black America's most prestigious magazine. Why? Because most black media outlets wish to keep the "blacks need liberals to achieve" thing alive. Rice and Thomas achieved their phenomenal success the old-fashioned way: They earned it.


Sharpton on the cover of Ebony magazine is typical of liberal black media's betrayal. They have been feeding their people spin and untruths for years, all of which is designed to keep blacks on the government dependency plantation and voting for Democrats.


Imagine how empowering it would be for blacks if Ebony featured a self-made black conservative on its cover. When I say "self-made", I do not mean without any assistance. No man is an island, and all who succeed had help along the way. I am talking about achieving through education, hard work, and doing the right things -- as opposed to the demeaning liberal path to success, which is lowered standards, playing the victim card, and affirmative action.


Frustratingly, entrenched false paradigms are difficult to break. The Republican party was founded partly to end slavery. Historically and today, Republicans have proven themselves to be far greater friends to blacks than the democrats. And yet most blacks believe that Republicans are racists. Despite numerous mega-rich blacks and America electing a black president, most blacks mindlessly embrace the liberal lie that America has not changed much since the 1950s. Compassionately, I want to grab black America by the collar and slap it while yelling, "Wake up...snap out of it!"


I know two black brothers. The elder has had a factory job which he hates for twenty years. His mind is infected with liberal rhetoric: "The American system is designed for blacks to fail." Meanwhile, his younger brother ignored the lies and started his own successful janitorial business shortly after graduating high school.


Life is about choices. Liberals do a great disservice to minorities by constantly attempting to convince them they are eternal victims unable to achieve without liberal intervention. It has been said that "If you love someone, set him free."


-Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American

4)Change Nobody Believes In: A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve

And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new "manager's amendment" that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9p.m. on December 24.

Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.

***
• Health costs. From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. "Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills," Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like "community rating" because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.

As for the White House's line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed "waste," even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. "The oft-heard promise 'we will find out what works and what does not' scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice," the Stanford professor wrote.

• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.

This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they'll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.

Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so "substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance" that companies like WellPoint might need to "be considered part of the federal budget."

With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington's hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, "our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all," as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.

"The Senate isn't hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day," Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they're allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will "destroy over 200 of America's best and safest hospitals."

• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare's unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost "only" $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.

Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid's final machinations. Job creation, here we come.

Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn't start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won't happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association's priority was eliminating this "sustainable growth rate" but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.

The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run "exchanges" that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses.

As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.

For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also "a new welfare and tax system" that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into "contractors" or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into "free" health care, taxpayer costs will explode.

• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as "ideologues" by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn't be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration's own Medicare actuaries.

Others got hush money, namely Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare's unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that "will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees," as he put it in a letter to his state's junior Senator.

So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don't have a Senator who's the 60th vote for ObamaCare?

***
"After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America," Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He's forced to claim the mandate of "history" because he can't claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal's composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.

The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.

So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.





5)A blonde and her husband are lying in bed listening to the next door neighbor's dog. It has been in the backyard barking for hours and hours.

The blonde jumps up out of bed and says, "I've had enough of this."

She goes downstairs.

The blonde finally comes back up to bed and her husband says, "The dog is still barking,

What have you been doing?"

The blonde says, "I put the dog in our backyard, let's see how THEY like it!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two Blondes With Hammers..

Lynn and Judy were doing some carpenter work on a Habitat for Humanity house. Lynn was nailing down house siding, would reach into her nail pouch, pull out a nail and either toss it over her shoulder or nail it in.

Judy, figuring this was worth looking into, asked, 'Why are you throwing those nails away?'

Lynn explained, 'When I pull a nail out of my pouch, about half of them are defective and have the head on the wrong end and I throw them away.'

Judy got completely upset and yelled, 'You moron! Those nails aren't defective! They're for the other side of the house!'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did you hear about the two blondes who froze to death in a
Drive-in movie?

They had gone to see 'Closed for the Winter.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A blonde was driving home after a game and got caught in a really bad hailstorm. Her car was covered with dents, so the next day she took it to a repair shop. The shop owner saw that she was a blonde, so he decided to have some fun. He told her to go home and blow into the tailpipe really hard, and all the dents would pop out.

So, the blonde went home, got down on her hands and knees and started blowing into her tailpipe. Nothing happened. So she blew a little harder, and still nothing happened.

Her blonde roommate saw her and asked, 'What are you doing?' The first blonde told her how the repairman had instructed her to blow into the tail pipe in order to get all the dents to pop out.

The roommate rolled her eyes and said, 'Uh, like hello! You need to roll up the windows first.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A blonde was shopping at Target and came across a shiny silver Thermos.

She was quite fascinated by it, so she picked it up and took it to the clerk to ask what it was.

The clerk said, 'Why, that's a thermos..... It keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold.'

'Wow, said the blonde, 'that's amazing....I'm going to buy it!' So she bought the thermos and took it to work the next day.

Her boss saw it on her desk. 'What's that,' he asked?

'Why, that's a thermos..... It keeps hot things hot and cold things Cold,' she replied.

Her boss inquired, 'What do you have in it?'

The blonde replied.....'Two popsicles and some coffee.'

++++++++++++++++++++++
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST:

A blonde goes into work one morning crying her eyes out.

Her boss asked sympathetically, 'What's the matter?'

The blonde replies, 'Early this morning I got a phone call saying that my mother had passed away.'

The boss, feeling sorry for her, says, 'Why don't you go home for the day? Take the day off to relax and rest.'

'Thanks, but I'd be better off here. I need to keep my mind off it and I have the best chance of doing that here.'

The boss agrees and allows the blonde to work as usual. A couple of hours pass and the boss decides to check on the blonde. He looks out from his office and sees the blonde crying hysterically.

'What's so bad now? Are you gonna be okay?' he asks.

'No!' exclaims the blonde. 'I just received a horrible call from my sister. Her mother died, too!