I tend to agree with Andrew McCarthy regarding the Obama birth certificate flap. It isn'tso much as to whether or not the President is a natural-born American, but about his honesty and integrity.

To me, since the Board of Elections has endorsed the President's qualifications, even if he was born on the moon, the election is valid. But the question remains as to why Obama refused (and still refuses) to answer any questions about his past. I mean, if I were running for public office and I were asked to show proof of my citizenship, I would be more than happy to show it to whomever needed to see it.

Why not?

But by withholding, Obama set himself up for these questions that even if they are ridiculous, have cost a lot of time, money and effort for absolutely no reason. Plus, Obama comes across as hiding something and while he may feel the whole country loves him and he can do no wrong, his current polling is beginning to paint a different picture.

Simply put, it is his own arrogance that will be his downfall and he will have no one but himself to blame should it all come crashing down.

Here is McCarthy's excellent editorial:

Suborned in the U.S.A.

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smear” to refer to him as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The candidate had initially rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed’s grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, Obama did what Obama always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.

Suddenly, it was “just making stuff up,” as Obama put it, for questioners “to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.” “The only connection I’ve had to Islam,” the candidate insisted, “is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Forget about “Hussein”; the mere mention of Obama’s middle initial — “H” — riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that “shadowy attackers” were “lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim.” The Obamedia division at USA Today, in a report subtly titled “Obama’s grandma slams ‘untruths,’” went so far as to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother is a Christian — even though a year earlier, when Obama’s “flaunt Muslim ties” script was still operative, the New York Times had described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a “lifelong Muslim” who proclaimed, “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith.”

Such was the ardor of Obama’s denials that jaws dropped when, once safely elected, he reversed course (again) and embraced his Islamic heritage. “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents,” an administration spokesman announced. “You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father . . .” The “Muslim father” theme was an interesting touch: During the campaign, when the question of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.’s Islamic faith reared its head, the candidate curtly denied it with an air of what’s-that-got-to-do-with-me? finality: “My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn’t know him.” And, it turns out, the spokesman’s fleeting bit about “growing up in Indonesia” wasn’t the half of it: Obama had actually been raised as a Muslim in Indonesia — or, at least that’s what his parents told his schools (more on that in due course).

These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider National Review’s leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with Tuesday’s editorial, “Born in the U.S.A.”

The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept...

Please continue reading the article here.

Here is another valuable lesson from my friend Doug Ross, regarding what the future holds if we continue down the path the Democrats are leading us:

Blue State Bloodletting


Consider the men and women who control every elected branch of government, Democrats all. A president from Chicago. A house speaker from San Francisco. Powerful committee heads from Boston, Manhattan, Beverly Hills and the Bay Area.

Strikingly, the worst economic hardships are suffered by residents of their "blue" states; the very same areas that these bureaucrats purport to represent. Consider the following facts.

• Oregon, Michigan and California have the highest unemployment rates in the country.

• The red states, including the Dakotas, Idaho, Texas, Utah, and North Carolina, are the fastest growing regions.

• Economic forecaster Bill Watkins notes that when the economy rebounds, people and businesses will naturally migrate to "places that are affordable and don’t have the fundamental tough tax and regulatory structures", i.e., red states.

• Blue states have allowed public sector employment to explode; and are dominated by public employee unions since the sixties. New York and California are examples where public sector employment has grown unchecked and been allowed to dominate the political process.

• These unions bask in lavish benefits that become onerous even in good economies. Now, in California alone, state pensions are $200 billion in the red.

• San Francisco has more than 700 retirees earning over $100,000 a year.

• Blue states also have allowed environmental regulation to overwhelm the real economy. Climate change regulations have crushed manufacturing companies in California, which has lost roughly 400,000 jobs in that sector in only eight years.

• Blue state trucking firms are dying and harming minority business-owners most of all.

• In California's central valley, large cultivated areas will be forced to return to desert-like conditions due to regulations that hope to save an obscure fish species. In May alone, 30,000 agriculture jobs were lost, which were mostly held by Latinos, and unemployment is 17% in the region and as high as 40% in some towns.

• Michigan fares no better. Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has attempted to create "green jobs" for years. Yet by every measure, Michigan is dying.

• Michigan ranks at or near the bottom for unemployment, out-migration, the worst place to start a business, per capita income (from 16th to 33rd under Granholm's tenure).

• Detroit has a 22% unemployment rate and 33% of the population receives food stamps. Six of the worst ten U.S. job markets are in Michigan.

• Already burdened with the highest tax rates in the country, blue state middle income earners (households earning between $125K and $250K) are about to be lumped in with the "rich".

• Despite his "no-blue-states-no-red-states-just-the-United-States" rhetoric, more than 90 percent of the top 300 administration officials come from states that went blue for President Obama.

• This approach, according to political scientists, is natural for products of the Chicago machine. Opposition is unheard of. 49 out of 50 aldermen are Democrats—and follow policies adopted by the small central cadre, similar to the Politburo.

• Once policy is set, Daley operatives like David Axelrod begin spinning up the media and twisting recalcitrant arms to bully ahead and sway public opinion.

• But, without question, machine politics demonstrably hurts its citizens. Democracy doesn't exist in these areas; taxpayers and businesses flee the core cities, and sometimes blue states entirely, to free themselves from unresponsive regimes that grow unchecked in good times and bad.

This is the environment that Barack Obama and his close-knit cadre of Chicago hacks intend to replicate. Government for the government and not the people. Unions bosses grown obese with monopoly power. And one-party rule.

It is a recipe for disaster, California- and Michigan-style.

Have a wonderful and meaningful weekend!

So, boys and girls, what have we learned over the past 6 months?

Do you feel safer than you did when President Bush was in office? Do you feel more optimistic about the economy than you did then? Do you feel like we are now better suited to win the War on Terror? Do you feel all hopey and changey?

What about your job? Is it more secure? Do you feel more likely to buy a GM than you did a year ago? What about Guantanamo, do you still think it should be closed and its inhabitants brought to the mainland?

In other words, do you feel that the right people are in the right positions to steer this country forward? And if you do, why? What tells you that we are improving?

Well, apparently, more and more of you are beginning to rethink their vote and really, not a moment too soon. Obama's approval ratings have fallen below 50% for the first time and his handling of the economy has fallen to 30%. His bullying tactics against the blue-dog Democrats, mixed with his racial gaffe at calling the Cambridge Police Department "stupid" before knowing the facts (as if knowing the true facts would have changed his mind anyway), are beginning to finally penetrate the aura of invincibility he has built up around him.

Of course, for any real change, it will take a mass-awakening by the mainstream press - which, sad to say, is hard to imagine.

To prove my points here, I turn to two outstanding commentaries, written by two of my favorite writers. The first one, written by ever-so-brilliant Thomas Sowell, is titled "Disaster in the Making":

After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.

Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief...

To read the entire thing, click here.

The second article is written by the talented and insightful Michelle Malkin. Now, many on the Left despise Malkin and often use racially derogatory adjectives to describe her (just look at the Huffington Post, Daily Kos or Democratic Underground on a daily basis - or watch Keith Olbermann to know how right I am). But the venom they blithely spew only proves that - number one - she's hit a nerve, and - number two - they fear her. For if they didn't, they wouldn't spend so much time and exert so much effort to try and destroy her (see Palin, Sarah).

Michelle's article is titled "Bully Boys: A Brief History of White House Thuggery":

Six months into the Obama administration, it should now be clear to all Americans: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the "Today Show" that he had met with CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf — just as the number crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims. Yes, question the timing.

The CBO is supposed to be a neutral scorekeeper — not a water boy for the White House. But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health care savings claims, Obama's budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy.

Orszag warned the CBO in a public letter that it risked feeding the perception that it was "exaggerating costs and underestimating savings." Message: Leave the number fudging to the boss. Capiche?

To read the entire thing, click here.

Both articles should be read sitting down. But both should definitely be read.

In care you are wondering, no. I am not going to stop screaming about this behemoth mistake that Obama is trying to force on this country. The disastrous health care reform bill - that no Democrat feels it necessary to read - stands ready to destroy one of the most wonderful aspects of our freedom and nation.

So whatever I can do in my little corner of the world, I am doing.

Here is a terrific commentary by Dennis Prager, a man I feel is the preeminent leader in the study and understanding of Judeo-Christian beliefs. If you really don't know why (or how) Obama's plan is so dangerous, I urge you to spend just a few minutes and read it in its entirety:

10 Questions for Supporters of ‘ObamaCare’ (JWR)

1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?

2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?

3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.

4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?

5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?

6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others' money -- i.e., taxes? 7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?

8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?

10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries. Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?

This bill MUST be defeated. I know that the thinking goes that if it goes down in flames, then the Obama Presidency goes down with it. While I wish that were true, I don't buy it. After all, universal health care was the signature plan for Bill Clinton. It was so vital to his campaign that once he won, he gave the task of putting it together to Hillary.

But it turned out to be a dismal failure. Yet, Clinton went on to not only remain quite popular, he defeated his opponent solidly in his reelection bid.

Obama's approval ratings are finally dwindling and they are for good reason. He has down exactly the opposite of what he promised to do in many aspects of his campaign. He promised transparency - he hasn't done it. He promised post-racial harmony - judging from his terrible gaffe the other day in regards to the Cambridge police department, as well as Eric Holder's stunning refusal to prosecute the the young black thugs who gathered at a voting site in Philadelphia, with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters. This, in addition to Holder's racial-charged comment that America is "a nation of cowards" for not dialoguing about race.

For whatever reason, the media refused to correlate the fact that Obama did spend 20 years listening to the race-baiting words of Jeremiah Wright. Why the Liberals refuse to accept that as anything other than acceptable is one of the great mysteries of our age. I mean, really. If it were discovered that George Bush spent 20 years listening to the racist rantings of David Duke every Sunday, do you really think the media would find that acceptable???

Obama's history - both recent and past - have shown a very disturbing pattern of blatant racism, anti-Americanism and anti-Capitalism. How can ANYONE believe his plans on health reform are anything other that an attempt to further control the lives of Americans?

I will remind you again - YES, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE! And it will if we sit by and let it. Call your Congressmen, your Senators - hell, call your news stations - go to a Tea Party rally, make your voice heard! This health care plan must be defeated.

If - as a matter of fact - it brings us closer to the defeat of those who are ashamed of the goodness of America - then so be it. It's time to stop walking to the ovens, people.

Random Musings

Boy, I can not believe how deathly afraid the Liberals are of Sarah Palin. There really is no reason they would spend so much time and energy (and money - have you seen the latest MoveOn.org ad criticizing her?) vilifying a woman who is no longer holding public office.

For those of you who support Obama - especially the Jews among you - are you sorry yet?

I don't know exactly when it happened, and it really no longer matters, but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that the Democratic Party has really become the true anti-Semitic party. Oh I know there are some pro-Israel Democrat politicians. But they are badly outnumbered. From where I stand, with the exception of Pat Buchanan, who is now just a media joke, the Right has Israel's best interests at heart.

Of course, it helps that the Left has moved far away from religious (true religious) beliefs. But I guess that can be expected in a group the places the government about G-d. The Libs talk about moving towards a more European-style way of life.

But why? Look at Europe today. Is this what we Americans really want? Oppressive taxation, low birthrates, and generally poor health care? and what about the fact that they are losing the battle against fundamentalist Islam?

Isn't the reason obvious??? Man disparately wishes to find meaning in life. As long as Europe has thrown away belief in G-d (oh, be quiet - you know it's true) and turned to socialism and belief in State, there is left a vacuum. The Muslims realize this and because of it, they are able to attract followers who are also searching for meaning. I'm not saying that there is meaning in Islam, not at all. From my perspective, it is a religion (at least how it is practiced by the Islamic Supremacists) that is based on war, death, conquering and true evil.

But like Nazi Germany, it appeals to the basic needs of the downtrodden with promises of glory and revenge. Socialistic complacency can never compete. The Democrats have proven time nd again that their beliefs are framed in the ideals of the European model, and also they believe that often the ends justify the means.

That isn't just socialism, it's totalitarianism. Nancy Pelosi AND Barack Obama, if given the power - which they nearly have already - would completely redesign all that our founding father's, our war heroes and everyone else lived and died to protect. As I warned back when the election was near, giving today's Democratic Party the power of a complete majority is the worst possible outcome that could be imagined.

Today, with the help of what may just be the first of many trillion dollar "stimulus" packages and the impending implosion of quality health care, by means of the unread Obama Health Care bill, we are realizing that this nightmare is coming true.

Unemployment is almost twice as high as it was during the Bush administration. Already, the Obama team has "corrected" themselves, saying that they didn't mean that the stimulus would actually stimulate the economy (which was exactly what Obama said it would do if we just hurried up and passed it - sight unseen), but now they say it only "stabilizes" the economy.

If by "stabilize" they mean cost thousands and thousands of more jobs, then yeah, I get it.

A government that lies to get their way, then goes back and deletes those lies, is not one that should be trusted to revamp health care. And if not for the shameful complicity of the mainstream media, perhaps more Americans would be aware of it. But instead, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and even to some extent, FOX, would rather focus on Sarah Palin and Michael Jackson then - G-d forbid - scrutinize the man who has been given the reigns of our government and economy!

It's enough to make you realize that G-d's hand must be in it. For there is no way so many of our fellow Americans are THAT blind.

If your blood hasn't sufficiently boiled over yet, here is a link to a post that will do the trick - Top Obama Health Advisor Supports Euthanasia: Wants Health Care For Non-Disabled "Participating" Citizens.

Here's another one - Democratic Senator: Why Bother Reading the Health Bill?

And one more - Assploding Irony Alert: US Leftist Group "Peace Now" Urges Senators Not to Sign Letter Encouraging Peace Between Israel and Arab World....

Unreal.

Ten Great Songs From One Great Decade

1960's

The decade of the 60’s was perhaps the most tumultuous since the end of the Second World War. As the decade began, post-war America was in full retreat from the struggles of the War years and with it began the flight from the cities to the ever-expanding suburbia. Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway system seemed to be the perfect match for America’s love affair with their automobiles as Detroit became not only a major hotbed in music, but in transportation.

With the election of Camelot, it seemed our future was headed in the right direction. Even the moon was no longer out of our reach, and by the end of the decade, we landed there. But on the way, optimism and enthusiasm gave way to murder and racial upheaval. Within the ten years of the 60’s, we met and lost a President, a Senator and a Civil Rights icon to an assassin’s bullet and we lost wonderfully talented musicians to drug overdoses. What was a dream come true, turned out to be a wasted nightmare whose effects are still felt today.

Musically, this decade was the most diverse of them all. From innocent crooners and teen idols of the early 60’s to psychedelic electric music of the late 60’s, this 10-year stretch had it all. But above everything and anyone else, this decade belonged to the Beatles. Fittingly, the end of the decade brought about the end of the band who was most instrumental in fomenting the changes in music and attitudes of young Americans.

With this list, I hope to capture that evolution from the idyllic times through the complex.

Georgia On My Mind – Ray Charles (1960)

Hoagy Carmichael and Stuart Gorrell wrote this in 1930. Carmichael was an actor, performer, and popular songwriter - some of his other compositions include "Stardust" and "Winter Moon." Gorrell was a banker living in New York City, and he wrote the lyrics. It's possible that this was written about a woman, not the state. Carmichael and Gorrell didn't live in Georgia, but Carmichael did have a sister named Georgia. However, Ray Charles was born in the state of Georgia. Charles decided to record this after his driver suggested it, since Ray kept singing it while riding in the car. This won Grammy awards for Best Male Vocal Recording and Best Pop Song Performance. The album also won for Best Male Vocal Performance Album, and another song on the album, "Let the Good Times Roll," won for Best R&B Performance, giving Charles a total of 4 Grammys in 1960.

Runaway – Del Shannon (1961)

This is about a guy whose girl leaves him, and he is left to wonder what went wrong. A lot of Shannon's songs were about broken relationships. He once said he wrote the words to this about himself because he was forever running away from relationships. According to Shannon, "We were on stage and Max (Crook) hit an A minor and a G and I said, 'Max, play that again, it's a great change.'" The drummer, Dick Parker, followed them and after 15 minutes, the manager of the club shouted, 'Knock it off, play something else.'" The next day Shannon wrote some lyrics: "That night I went back to the club and I told Max to play an instrumental on his musitron for the middle part, and when he played that solo, we had 'Runaway.'"

The Loco-motion – Little Eva (1962)

The husband and wife songwriting team of Carole King and Gerry Goffin wrote this. Little Eva was the babysitter for their daughter Louise. They had Eva record it simply to demo the song, which was intended for Dee Dee Sharp. Producer Don Kirshner was impressed by Eva's vocal on the demo tape and had her record it. Carole King sang backup along with an R&B girl group called The Cookies. This was a #1 US hit for Grand Funk in 1974. It was only the second time the same song became a #1 for 2 different artists. The first was "Go Away Little Girl" by Steve Lawrence in 1962 and Donny Osmond in 1971. King and Goffin also wrote that song as well.

Up On The Roof – The Drifters (1963)

TFirst recorded by Little Eva, this breezy summertime song evokes the high-rise apartments in American cities where urban dwellers could escape from the stresses of daily living by climbing onto the tar "beaches" on the roofs of their buildings. Like “The Loco-motion”, this too was written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King, and the lead vocalist was Rudy Lewis. Carole King recorded a solo version of this on her 1970 album Writer. In 1979, James Taylor took this song to #7 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary Chart.

I Want To Hold Your Hand – The Beatles (1964)

This was the first Beatles song to catch on in America. In 1963, the Beatles became stars in England, but couldn't break through in the US. They couldn't get a major label to distribute their singles in America, so songs like "Love Me Do" and "She Loves You" were issued on small labels and flopped, even though they were hits in England. By February 1964, America finally took notice of The Beatles and bought this single in droves, giving them their first US hit. It sold better in first 10 days of release in the US than any other British single.

Do You Believe In Magic? – The Lovin' Spoonful(1965)

This was written by John Sebastian, who formed The Lovin' Spoonful with his friend, Zal Yanovsky. Sebastian and Yanovsky were in a group called The Mugwumps, and made a name for themselves playing clubs in Greenwich Village. When the other Mugwumps - Mama Cass Elliot and Denny Doherty - moved to California and formed The Mamas And The Papas, they formed the band and Sebastian began focusing on songwriting. The Lovin' Spoonful started playing electric instruments to get away from the folk music sound and attract a younger contemporary rock audience.

Homeward Bound – Simon and Garfunkel (1966)

Simon talked about this song in a 1990 interview with SongTalk magazine: "That was written in Liverpool when I was traveling. What I like about that is that it has a very clear memory of Liverpool station and the streets of Liverpool and the club I played at and me at age 22. It's like a snapshot, a photograph of a long time ago. I like that about it but I don't like the song that much. First of all, it's not an original title. That's one of the main problems with it. It's been around forever. No, the early songs I can't say I really like them. But there's something naive and sweet natured and I must say I like that about it. They're not angry. And that means that I wasn't angry or unhappy. And that's my memory of that time: it was just about idyllic. It was just the best time of my life, I think, up until recently, these last five years or so, six years... This has been the best time of my life. But before that, I would say that that was."

Ruby Tuesday – The Rolling Stones (1967)

This is about a groupie. Linda Keith, who was Keith Richard’s girlfriend, may have inspired it. Richards said in According to the Rolling Stones: "It was probably written about Linda Keith not being there (laughs). I don't know, she had pissed off somewhere. It was very mournful, very, VERY Ruby Tuesday and it was a Tuesday." Richards: "That's one of those things - some chick you've broken up with. And all you've got left is the piano and the guitar and a pair of panties. And it's goodbye you know. And so it just comes out of that. And after that you just build on it. It's one of those songs that are easiest to write because you're really right there and you really sort of mean it. And for a songwriter, hey break his heart and he'll come up with a good song."

I Heard It Through The Grapevine – Marvin Gaye (1968)

Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong wrote this Motown classic about a man who finds out his woman is cheating on him. Strong came up with the idea, and asked Motown writers Holland/Dozier/Holland to work on it with him. They refused to credit another writer, so Strong took it to Whitfield, who helped put it together. Whitfield and Strong wrote several other Motown hits, including "Ain't Too Proud To Beg," "Just My Imagination," and "Money (That's What I Want)." This song became the longest running Motown #1 hit, topping the US chart for 7 weeks. It was also Gaye’s first number one (he returned 5 years later with “Let’s Get it On”).

Everybody's Talkin' – Nillson (1969)

This was featured in Midnight Cowboy, a 1969 movie about a male prostitute in New York City starring Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight. Folk singer Fred Neil wrote this and released it on his 1967 self-titled album, which was the first one where he used electric instruments. Neil was a very influential singer who made a name for himself playing Greenwich Village clubs with people like John Sebastian, David Crosby, and Stephen Stills. He pretty much disappeared around 1971, resurfacing every now and then for various events. He had a small, but dedicated group of fans and looked like he was on his way to stardom, but apparently that was never his goal. Neil died in his Florida home in 2001.

Is Obama really that ignorant? You be the judge:

VIDEO: Let them eat painkillers
Courtesy of Hot Air

This Marie Antoinette moment took place a month ago, and Karl mentioned it in a post at the time, but the video is definitely worth a revisit. Jane Sturm told Barack Obama that her mother had needed a pacemaker implanted at 100 years of age, but got denied by the first doctor she saw. She found a doctor who would do the surgery, impressed by her spirit. When Sturm asked Obama if her mother would have received a pacemaker under ObamaCare … well, watch for yourself:

Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

This shows why politicians shouldn’t decide on medical treatments. Dr. Helen Smith, who herself had the same kind of heart problems at a very young age, explains why Obama’s course of treatment would have led to, er, cost savings:

Some heart arrhythmia's are deadly, and a doctor telling a patient to take a pain killer to treat V-tach or V-fib should be guilty of malpractice. …

Heart arrhythmia's can be absolutely terrifying leading to panic attacks and/or fatigue so crippling that one cannot get off the couch. A pain killer is not going to help. But maybe that’s the idea. Obama is so determined to get his health care plan passed–no matter what the consequences– that he doesn’t care how or if people suffer, especially older people.

Is Obama heartless, mean or just plain ignorant? His response to Jane Sturm leaves me wondering which.

No more heartlesss, mean, or ignorant than the bureaucrats who will eventually make these decisions under ObamaCare, using their pocket Comparative Effectiveness Charts^TM.

Update: The video above was edited for a radio broadcast; the full video is here:

This doesn’t change the criticism above at all. Obama still says that government will tell doctors that Sturm’s mother may not get the pacemaker but be told to take a pill. And although Obama says that “ultimately, that decision will be between doctors and patients” at the end of this video, he’s making it clear that it won’t be at all, but will be decided by a government official who will judge whether or not to pay for a procedure based on its effectiveness. And Sturm’s mother still wouldn’t have been helped by a painkiller.

Now remember, in this monstrosity of a health care plan, the decision as to whether a procedure is necessary (ANY procedure or treatment) is not made by you and your physician, but by a bureaucratic pencil-pusher in Washington, D.C.

Considering the man the Democrats call brilliant, and elected as President, feels that in place of a pacemaker, this woman should be given painkillers, what does that say for the quality of the determinations that the government will make?

Remember, boys and girls, this administration has already given us a slew of tax cheats to run the Treasury, a complete intelligence novice to run the CIA, Joe Biden to be the Vice President, his campaign enemy to be Secretary of State, a car czar who has never worked in the auto industry, given over the reigns of GM to the very union that has destroyed the company, aligns himself with the worst despots in the world, will not interfere with the slaughter of innocent Iranians who are dying in the streets, calls for the return of the Honduran president who committed treason against his countries constitution and blames the lack of peace in the Middle East on some Jews who just wish to add on a second floor to their house.

Keep in mind, this man can not speak coherently without a teleprompter.

When will someone (not on the right - we've been saying it all along) please just admit this Obama character is just not that bright?

Because if he is, and this is a big if, then he is complicit in the destruction of freedom in America. You can not have it both ways!

I still recall how Liberals, during the Bush years, would scream that Bush was a complete moron and yet in the same breath complain about his evil plans for America. If he truly was an idiot, he wouldn't be smart enough to make up these "evil plans."

Obama is either a complete idiot, or he is a Marxist thug hell-bent on turning us into Venezuela or Cuba. I'm not sure which one he is, yet. But comments like the one he made to this lady make me consider door number two.

Again, much, much too important to not copy here. If I can just reach one person out there about the horrors of Obama-Care (as well as his failing Presidency), then I will have at least made a difference.

Anyone who thinks that Obama isn't dangerous if either too naive, or simply can not see what's so clearly right in front of him. I had a conversation with someone very close to me recently, and he simply told me I was foolish to think anything bad could happen here, in this country.

Tell that to my great-grandparents and their siblings. Oh wait, you can't. They were all murdered by the Nazis. Of course, had they not been, I'm certain that European socialism, with it's wonderful, no-cost health system would have insured their well-being and long-term care. Sure, just like in England, where you live only long enough before they determine you aren't financially viable to keep alive.

Anyway, just read this. Please?

Good News: Abortions and Assisted Suicides will NOT be Rationed!

Courtesy of Doug Ross

The Economic Policy Journal points us to Peter Fleckstein, who twittered the contents of the House Socialized Medicine bill. Oh, what a treat your family is in for.

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

What is it with Democrats? The only medical services that they don't want to ration are abortion and assisted suicide!