WE DID IT! WE DID IT! WE DID IT!

Have you heard the news?

Has it sunk in?

We've done it!

At last we've done it!

It took us a little time (not nearly as much time as "top" scientists said), but we did it!

All of the talk about it has paid off!

All of the factories in the universe have cut back on their carbon emissions!

Just talking about electric cars and selling a few here and there has done wonders!

Selling those twisted up, mercury filled light bulbs did the trick!

Why, Cap and Trade is just about dead in the water in the Senate, yet its influence has turned the tide.

Just reading "An Inconvenient Truth" has caused the weather wizards to see our sincerity and turn global warming into global cooling.

How well have we done?

New York is pretty cool.

The glaciers have actually grown these past two years.

Ocean temperatures have dropped.

There hasn't been a named storm in the Atlantic or Caribbean this whole hurricane season, which is 39 days old and counting.

And wonder of wonders, global temperatures have continued to plunge!

Well done, all you disaster mongers! Well done!

CALL ME CRAZY, BUT

My suggestion to you is to highlight and copy this post. Then print it out and stash it someplace safe.

"Why?" I hear you asking.

Because the time is not too far away when it will be deleted from the Internet, and its author (lil' ole me) will be in chains for some trumped up federal charge, and you will want to be able to refer to it.

"Why?" I hear you asking.

Because what I am about to predict will be seen by some as kook fringe, by others as the ravings of a tired old man and by the government as subversive.

I have listened to his words, watched his body language and compared his persona with films of despots around the world as they rose to power and have come to a conclusion.

Here it is:

Before his second term is up (and I do believe he will be re-elected), President BO will have convinced the members of the House of Congress, the members of the Senate, the Supreme Court (which will rule it Constitutional - 'cause they don't have to find something actually IN the Constitution to make it so, and President BO disdains the very Constitution he "took an oath" [snicker-snicker] to defend) and a majority of the American people that it is in the best interest of the country for him to serve another term in office.

Then, during his third term, he will have accumulated enough power to proclaim himself "president for life" in the manner of Julius Ceasar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Rafael Cerrera, Francois Duvalier, Saparmurat Niyazou, Jose Gaspar Rodrigues de Fancia, Josip Broz Tito, Kim Il-sung, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.

Just think of it!

Mr. Charisma in the White House for fifty years.

It is a thought that produces elation in the minds of way too many.

It should strike fear into the hearts of everybody.

Mark my words...he is following the path laid by every despotic dictator in the history of the universe, and has no less ambition than to do so.

Place me in the lunatic corner, if you wish.

That's OK.

If you live long enough, you will see.

Some day you will wake up and say, "You know, that obscure blogger...what was his name?...Jo-Jo the Chimp...no, that's not it...Jo-Somethingorother tried to warn us, but we ingored him and just sat back and let it happen."

Then, in the cover of darkness by candlelight, go pull out the copy of this post and re-read it.

You will shudder with remorse.

As Marc Antony said in Shakespeare's Julius Cesar, "The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault; And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it."

President BO is nothing, if not ambitious.

Medoubts that he will have to answer for it in this life.

(There is, however, another to come.)

THE BEST MEDICAL CARE IN THE WORLD

I don't understand why liberals would even consider backing President BO's health care plan.

There is no way they will ever get this kind of care under his plan.

Today we have strong evidence that the United States of America has the best doctors in the world, who can perform amazing, if unfortunate, feats of surgery.




Dr. Timothy McCarthy while receiving a medical award for creativity reported his findings to the Fellows of Plastic Surgery concluding with this case study:

"Several years ago a woman was high on cocaine and marijuana and she rode a horse into a train that was traveling 80 miles an hour.

"All I had left to work with was the woman's hair and the horse's behind.

"I was able to put them together and now she's Speaker of the House."

THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID

He's from the Pacific Northwest...not thought of as a bastion of Conservative thought.

I once lived in Tacoma Washington, so I was interested.

He signs in as "ablur."

I have to admit that I have no idea what that's a reference to, or whether it's a name, a pen-name or what-all.

All I know is that he commented on my last post, I visited his blog and was impressed.

My blogroll is not extensive.

I really love each of those I visit regularly, each for some real or imagined uniqueness.

Ablur's blog, called Some Things Just Need to Be Said , has that certain "je ne sais qua" that pulled me in.

I read back over some of his past posts and enjoyed the read.

You will too, I think.

Check him out.

AND NOW MY MAIN POST


Have you noticed Michael Jackson in the news lately?

They're holding his memorial service.

From his earliest days it was abundantly clear that Michael had an enormous talent.

I did not like what he did, but I have to admit that he did it exceedingly well.

He was highly paid, too.

Why is is OK for a Michael Jackson, a Tom Crews, an Eli Manning, an Alex Rodriguez and other entertainment and sports superstars to earn eight figure incomes while it is somehow wrong for CEOs of companies that are real producers of goods not to?

Sports figures and entertainers are never referred to as having "won life's lottery," even though it was largely their chance DNA that made them able to do what they do.

But the CEO of a large, successful, productive corporation that provides an income to hundreds or thousands of people, and products that people yearn for, is somehow "evil" if he/she is highly paid.

Some people who are "entertainers" have virtually no talent at all, yet they make more than some CEOs who have led their companies to the Fortune 500 club.

Somebody explain that, please.

WEIGHING IN ON BOWING OUT

Sarah Palin has announced that she will resign as Governor of Alaska.

You already know that, but do you know why?

Neither does anybody else.

Oh, there are plenty of speculators out there.

She's going to run for President.

She's going to run for the senate.

She's resigning for personal issues.

She's in the midst of some kind of scandal.

She has some insufferable disease.

Her kids are getting to hard to deal with.

She's giving in to her husband's wishes.

Her political career has run its course.

She's mad at Americans.

She's young...she'll be back!

I've seen them all.

They are all wrong.

For those of you who have been stewing over this, I have the definitive answer.

Are you ready?

Do you really want to know?

Well, here it is:


WE DON'T KNOW!

Why is that so hard to admit?

I suspect she will tell us in due time...don't you?

REMEMBER INDEPENDENCE DAY FOR WHAT IT MEANS TO AMERICA!

HAPPY 4th OF JULY!

PLAY-BY-PLAY

This video says so much about the administration of President BO and it so-called "transparancy."

Let's look at what took place.

CBS's Chip Reid takes on White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in a rare MSM moment of honesty and questioning. For whatever reason, Chip felt like the press conference was phoney because of the pre-selected questions and pre-planned answers. (Play the video and follow the dialog here):

CHIP: "The concept of a Town Hall is to have an open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions. Why do it that way..."

GIBBS: "Why don't we do it this way? You can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked..."

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps.

CHIP: "...why not just open it up to people and allow any question...?"

GIBBS: "Weh...I, I, Chip I think if you get on your computer...your email address...have you sent in your question?"

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps.

CHIP: " I think that would be inappropriate. This is for the public.

GIBBS: "I, Im sorry, I'm confused. Are you not a member of the public?"

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. It is also evasive, not to mention snide, snotty, arrogant and (if he was sincere - which he obviously was not) STUPID.

CHIP: "Well I think if you were going to allow questions from the press, you'd have us in a prominent position and allow us to ask questions. You haven't done that."

GIBBS: "Let's not get into the notion of where you'd be sitting..."

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. And Gibbs picks at his nose in obvious derrision at the question, all-the-while grinning that very fake grin of arrogance.

CHIP: "...well out of shouting range."

GIBBS: "Well, but, but, you could email."

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. It's like Gibbs is pretending that he is really responding to Chip, while, of course, he is doing nothing of the kind. (But Gibbs knows that you and I THINK he is being genuine and answering the questions appropriately, because he thinks you and I are really dumb).

CHIP: "Would you put my question in? I don't think so"

GIBBS (Smirking shrug): "Maybe. Have you emailed"

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. Besides, Gibbs knows full well that Chip had not emailed his questions. It's sort of like one of my favorite brand new old sayings, "Surely a person as intelligent as you can see that I'm right."

CHIP: "This is a Town Hall. This is an open forum for the public to ask questions. But it's not really open."

GIBBS: "Based on what?" (Like he didn't know what Chippy was talking about.)

CHIP: "Based on the informatin that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected."

GIBBS: "The questions are being selected by people that email on Face Book and Twitter."

CHIP: "They're not deciding what questions actually get in."

GIBBS (annoyed): "Well I...I appreciate again... "

CHIP: "This is all tightly controlled...unlike his Town Meetings all through the campaign..."

GIBBS: "I appreciate the pre-selected question on your part."

What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, It just side-steps. It is also more snide, arrogance and irritation.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: "Will there be dessenting views?"

CHIP: "Yes, how about that?"

GIBBS: "I...I think that's a very safe bet. But again...how 'bout we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I'll let you ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the Town Hall meeting that the President conducted in Annondale...

HELEN THOMAS (Interrupting): "That is not his (Chip's) point. The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House...we have had some control, but I'm amazed at you people who called for openness and transparency and you have CONTROL...

GIBBS (Interrupting the interrupter): "You haven't even heard the questions!"

What has having heard or not having heard the questions got to do with anything being asked?

CHIP: "It doesn't matter. It's the process."

GIBBS (Loud falsetto giggle):

CHIP: "Even if it's a tought question, it's a question from somebody who was invited or who was screened...or the question was screened."

GIBBS: "Uhh...Chip, Chip...Uh let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the Town Hall meeting...how about that? I think you'll be..."

Translation: Ooo. I've been backed into a corner and I don't want to talk abou this any more. Let's put it off and maybe we'll be able to formulate some kind of fakey response that will placate everybody or at least let them know who's boss here.

HELEN THOMAS: "No, no no. We're having it NOW."

GIBBS: "Well, I'd be happy to have it now."

If that's the case, what on earth was the argument all about? He does not want to have it at all!

THOMAS: "It's a pattern..."

GIBBS: "Who's question did you object to at the Town Hall meeting?"

You idiot! She was not objecting to any particular question! She was objecting to the PROCESS!

GIBBS: "What's the pattern?"

THOMAS: "It's the pattern of controlling the press."

GIBBS: "How SO? Is it any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press? Poorly, I might add. Falsetto giggle - falsetto giggle."

Translation: "Oh, look! I've just made a funny and poked fun at myself. This must all be good."

So, the problem is not that he's not controlling the press, the problem is that he's not doing it very well?

THOMAS: "Your horrible engagements are pre-packaged.

GIBBS (feigning innocence): "How So?"

THOMAS: "How so? By calling reporters the night before and telling them they're going to get called on? That is shocking!"

GIBBS: "I...I...we've had this discussion ad nausium and uh..."

THOMAS: 'Of course you would, 'cause you don't have any answers."

GIBBS: "Uh, well, uh, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen."

I could NOT have heard that right! He surely did not just admit that if he doesn't get the questions ahead of time he doesn't have the time to formulate a rehearsed, party-line, pre-planned answer...did he? Can't these guys just give an honest answer based on their expetise and experience?

GIBBS (Turning to another reporter): "Go ahead."

THOMAS (not letting him off the hook): "Well you should have."

GIBBS (snidely): "Have you emailed your question today?"

THOMAS: "I don't have to email it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask."

GIBBS: "I...I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all."

CHIP: "Actually, could you pass along a question to the President from all of us: Is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?"

GIBBS: "I will...I will uh...if you get on your computer, you can, uh, you can ask him that yourself."

CHIP: "I think you're a more direct pipeline."

GIBBS: "I don't know. I was just told that you guys have a pretty good (turning to another reporter) go ahead..."

And some of you still think that this administration is open, transparent, honest and honorable.

Fools.