So who vetted Scott Brown?

He did say – after his election to the U.S. Senate from the State of Massachusetts – that he wouldn’t be a “yes” man, didn’t he?

So why are we surprised that Brown essentially has conceded that he favors woman’s “right to abortion”. Who checked? Who knew? What different would it have made?

So he’s as good as his word, non? But this – well this is a bit disconcerting.

We can live with it. After all, it was a beautiful moment to see Brown bowl over the smug, clubby in-bred Bay State liberals. Oh, yeah – in the process, snatching away the seat held securely by the late Ted Kennedy for 17 years, and which had been in the Democrats’ domain for 100 years!

And let’s not forget – Brown’s arrival in the Senate ends the Democrats’ supermajority and gives the GOP 41 votes they can use to block President Barack Obama’s agenda.

This is no small spuds. The smug president and his shills, Pelosi and Reid, has used the advantage as a club to pound any opposition into submission – which they did joyfully, with impugnity. No more, praise God.

Great Scott! Can you believe it? Gone with the wind! And the ripples from this guided missile strike on the Democratic hierarchy’s lair are still widening.

Look, we’ll take it. We need it. It didn’t come a moment too soon. But let’s check into the record on abortion of mystery man Scott Brown to see if there were any clues about where he really stands on this explosive issue of abortion.

The informative and reliable OnTheIssues.com site does a stellar job of summarizing some of Brown’s votes and statements on abortion while serving as a Republican State Representative in the Ninth Norfolk district of Massachusetts. We borrow “liberally” from OnTheIssues for this telling synopsis:

2005: Conscience-based opt out of post-rape contraception

Coakley's campaign ad says Brown "favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims."

It's true that in 2005, when the MA state Legislature was considering a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, Brown introduced an amendment that would have let doctors and nurses opt out based on "a sincerely held religious belief" and refer patients elsewhere. It was similar to "conscience" provisions in federal legislation that would avoid forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion or contraception against the teachings of the church. Here's the language:

Brown amendment, Apr. 2005: "Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility t the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception."

Source: FactCheck "Bay State Battle" AdWatch: 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 13, 2010

Provide info about emergency contraception to rape victims

Brown voted for a 2005 amendment to deny emergency contraception to rape victims, but Coakley's ad [on that subject] doesn't mention that when the amendment failed, Brown voted for the underlying bill anyway.

The most misleading part of the ad, though is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, "Deny rape victims care." Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape.

That's far from the truth. The bill required that rape victims be provided with accurate information about emergency contraception and that they be offered it. Brown voted for the bill after unsuccessfully trying to carve out a religion exception. And there is nothing in the record that we are aware of to suggest that Brown ever supported denying any other type of care to victims of sexual assault.

Source: FactCheck "Bay State Battle" AdWatch: 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 13, 2010

Support legalized abortion, but not partial-birth abortion

Brown pointed out that he and Coakley both support legalized abortion. "Yet we have a very real difference," Brown said, "and the difference is I'm against partial-birth abortion, you're not."

"That's not right," Coakley shot back.

"Martha", Brown said, "with all due respect, you wrote an editorial that anyone can go online and find where you actually criticized partial-birth abortion, the fact that it's in fact not allowed. And we also have have a difference in that I don't believe that federal funding of abortion should be allowed, and I believe in a very strong parental consent notification law."

In a 2007 op-ed article in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Coakley called a Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on late-term abortions "tragic."

Source: WBUR article on 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 12, 2010

Supported by right-to-life groups for stem cell stance

Brown picked up the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion.

"We're behind him,'' said John Rowe, chairman of the group's federal political action committee. "The pro-life vote is very important at this point. It can make a big difference.'' The group did not support Brown in 2004, when, during his campaign for state Senate, he noted his support for Roe v. Wade. But Rowe said he believes that Brown's position has evolved. "We always welcome people coming over to our side,'' he said. Brown issued a statement through a spokesman: "While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America,'' he said.

Source: Boston Globe on 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 4, 2010

Authored bill for 24-hour waiting period for abortion

Brown has angered abortion-rights groups with acts like his co-sponsorship of the Women's Right to Know Act, which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and to review pictures and information detailing the developmental progress of her fetus.

Source: Boston Globe on 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 4, 2010

• Abortions should always be legally available.
• Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
• Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

Source: Massachusetts State Legislative Election 2002 NPAT Nov 1, 2002;

Brian Burch, the president of Catholic Vote Action, explains that the race was a contest between a thoroughly pro-abortion candidate in Coakley and a candidate in Brown who supports some abortion limits.

LifeNews.com, an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community, provides this direct quote from the Catholic official:

“Brown opposes using taxpayer funds for abortion, opposes partial-birth abortion, and supports other laws that would provide parents and women notice, counseling, and information prior to an abortion. But his opponent Martha Coakley was proudly 100% pro-abortion,” he says.

Even with his occasional shortcomings, Brown is a keeper. His stunning feat yields hope – nay, inevitability – that many of Obama’s liberal budget-busting signature initiatives will be derailed.

This refreshingly candid young Senator has singlehandedly hobbled the liberal Democratic juggernaut, which seemed destined to shatter America as we know it.

The Massachusetts Miracle is God’s gift to America. Praise the Lord.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Scott_Brown_Abortion.htm

http://www2.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/mass._certifies_brown_as_kennedy_successor/30874/

http://www.lifenews.com/state4745.html

My wife and I have been separated for a year. In politics, and politics only.

From the time you declared for the presidency, she supported you. She saw a new birth of American idealism. Someone in Washington she could trust. Change she could believe in.

I didn’t. I saw an opportunist, someone who was somehow a bit too glib and ingratiating. I saw a left-leaning politician with an underlying contempt for America.

We battled, Durrene and I. She stood me down that you were sincere, honest and able. She told me I was quick to criticize, even unfeeling and unappreciative. Excessively conservative, hidebound in my philosophy.

I didn’t yield. And she, in turn, remained unswerving in her loyalty.

Durrene is an intelligent woman. Patriotic. Idealistic. Informed on the issues. She charts her own course. I have always respected that and am proud of her. Still, we have had some very spirited partisan disagreements over you, your political gamesmanship, your claims that you have worked hard for the people of America.

There is no doubt you have worked hard. But my impression has been that much of this effort has gone to bend the core principles of the nation to your own designs. I have not subscribed to those objectives. Durrene has.

She stuck with you, undaunted, faithful to you and your administration. Until now. Until the Massachusetts Miracle that cut your audacious drive – shaped in secret – for a budget-busting, unworkable, unacceptable, misguided, behemoth health care debacle that was rushed through Congress – fast-tracked for the sake of blind-siding the American taxpayer.

Bad move, Mr. President. You smiled, schmoozed, placated, dodged, ducked, assured and reassured. You turned your hounds loose on us – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other radical left-wing Democrats, whom you counted on to do your bidding. It was a dirty game. A scurrilous underhanded plot. And it almost worked.

But, even before Massachusetts blew up in your face, your loyal troops, including my wife, were getting restless. They’re not naïve. They knew something was up. They were gathering their courage to break ranks and desert a cause that had let them down hard.

The stampede of the disenchanted was a 9.0 political earthquake, centered in Boston, that brought down your carefully constructed, grotesque empire in a heartbeat.

The seat “owned” by the Kennedy dynasty for 47 years collapsed like shoddy housing in quake-ravaged Haiti. Real blood has been shed there. Political blood has been spilled here. And it will be awhile before we can get an accurate count of the dead, the maimed and the missing.

But many of these people are within your reach. You know their names. You recruited them to your team. They subscribed to your leftist agenda. They are your closest supporters, complicit in your deception. You know of their dishonesty and treachery. You cultivated it. You need it. Glory in it.

There will be much moaning and gnashing of teeth. The destruction will be staggering, and, on an earthbound political and personal scale, one of Biblical proportions. At least for those who subscribe to the Bible’s wisdom, guidance, warnings, and revelation of God’s will.

 You reap what you sow, sir. Despite your high station in life, you are not spared this reality.

But, Mr. President, I will say to you sincerely that I believe America has been spared by Divine intervention. You have gone too far. You have had us on a path to destruction. You have ignored – even attacked and denied – the benevolent Providence that has hovered over our America, which was born a Christian nation, and remains so despite your assaults and cynicism. 

Oh, there will be protestations. There will be attempts to backtrack, revise history and quiet things down. This has already started.

Pelosi and Reid both say they hope to sneak a downscaled health farce through the Congress, shorn of just enough of its myriad objectionable features to be swallowed by the public. To which I say: Bring your deal-making out into the open. Flush your co-conspirators out of that dinghy back room and into the light. Bring on the prying eyes of C-Span. Better yet, make it Fox News. Or how about ESPN? HGTV? You get the idea.

You campaigned as the Champion of Change. Are the changes we now demand too much to ask? Honesty. Openness. Honor. Character. We all know the answer. Old habits die hard, don’t they?

So I have my wife back. I love and respect her. We have three grown sons, a grandchild, and will celebrate 50 years of wedded bliss later this year.

Mr. President, political reconciliation with my wife is not because of anything I did. I couldn’t convince her that you were not deserving of her trust and enthusiasm. You accomplished that yourself. You seem embarrassed by your own country. America is discovering that it should likewise be embarrassed by you.

All things will not be reconciled until Christ the Savior returns in triumph to the earth. But Massachusetts and what happened there will suffice for now – and we should all be prayerfully grateful.

I hope Reid stays, the sanctimonious two-faced SOB (Shill of Barack). I want him to fester like a cancer in the psyche of the light-skinned non-white who has no accent. If Harry gives up his sceptre, he will disappear into ignominy, no longer a ticking time bomb for the man who rules and ruins America, which is possibly the land of his birth.

Such a happenstance would truly be disappointing.

Of course, Harry has been “forgiven” by Obama, whose quick and empty response to any crisis, any colossal failure of his administration, is “The buck stops here.”

That worked for Harry Truman in another century. Not so for the present occupant of the White House. But that’s another story.

 Other pundits have written that, had the white racist who insulted the President, and, as he admitted by his “confession”, all African-Americans – had this hypocrite been a conservative Republican leader, he would not only be lynched in the press, he would also be defrocked, dethroned, and debased, but his “legacy” -- which all notorious Democrats treasure more than life, certainly more than the life of the unborn -- would be blown all to hell.

So I know Michael Steele is just doing his job. He, like all the rest of us, knows that his insistence on Reid’s resignation as big gorilla is only folly, obligatory, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I admire Mr. Steele. He is capable, and he is honest.

But it is Harry Reid we must save. Save him for the good of the country, for the eventual destruction of the radical left-wing anti-American Democratic Party. Save him for 2010.

 That’s when this walking war bond will mature. That’s when the high-rolling renegade from Nevada will finally pay off. Will finally be something of value. Finally give America something to thank him for.

That will be his legacy. It’s one he truly deserves. Hypocrite. Bigot. Liar. Cheat.

Other kingpins of the modern Democratic party should be so fortunate. And as useful.
 

http://news.aol.com/article/gop-response-to-reid-remark-shows-double/848298?cid=12

http://gop.com/

http://www.examiner.com/x-28761-Reno-Conservative-Examiner

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/national/story/276373.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/10/gops-steele-calls-for-reid-to-step-down-as-leader-because-of-ra/

As if separation of church and state weren’t bad enough – now we’ve got separation of church and news!

It had to happen.

A lot of us know that separation of church and state is a put-up job – and unconstitutional to boot.
But this silly flap over Brit Hume’s suggestion that Tiger Woods should “turn to the Christian faith” is disappointing, albeit predictable.

Hume – a broadcaster I have always admired – said on “Fox News Sunday” that legendary golfer and serial playboy Tiger Woods should trade his Buddhist faith for Christianity if he wants to make a comeback.

Cool. I’m glad the classy and always restrained newsman not only feels that way – but says so – on a program designed to discuss meaningful issues of the day. And, quite honestly, what could be more meaningful than where each of us will spend eternity?

And that question is not news? Well, no, not to the cynical, clubby, elitist and even atheistic types who people the lofty ranks of broadcast and print newsdom.

Anyway, here’s part of what veteran journalist Hume said on the Fox News channel on January 3:

"Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it's a tragic situation for him. I think he's lost his family, it's not clear to me if he'll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal -- the extent to which he can recover -- seems to me to depend on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist; I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"

The first reaction came from just across the table, when, after a moment of awkward silence, fellow panelist Bill Kristol recovered enough to gasp, "Well, Brit's concerned about Tiger's soul, which is admirable, but I just made a more straightforward sports prediction, which was that he'll come back and win the Masters."

Good for you, William. Any reporter in his right mind would put a thousand miles between his reputation and a public statement in support of the dreaded Christian faith.

But this hot potato was too good to pass up. The smirking began in earnest.

David Gibson, described as an award-winning religion journalist, author, filmmaker, and a convert to Catholicism, trumpeted in snide headlines on his Politics Daily column: “Brit Hume: Jesus Can Tame You, Tiger.”

“When talk turned to Tiger Woods,” the religion expert wrote, “Hume weighed in with some serious preachifying.”

Then the writer took pains to explain how it was that Brit Hume gained a reliance on Christ, noting that Hume’s faith really took root after his son committed suicide in 1998:

"I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I'm not claiming it's impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died, I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it's a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you're not really living it."

Very smarmy, wouldn’t you agree? Surely not the kind of thing that should be stated on a “news” broadcast. Why, what will the people say?

That it’s out of place, naturally. It’s . . . well, embarrassing. Way too personal. In American journalism, you know, we must make every effort to respect the separation of church and news!

Must we? Drivel.

But the Politics Daily religious commentator did one final idealogical body slam on Hume, as in World Championship Wrestling, or whatever:

“Anecdotally, one need look no further than the sanctimonious Christian pols-turned-philanderers, or the many high-profile pastors who turn out to have feet of clay. Statistics also show that Christians are as likely to divorce or abort as everyone else, and Bible Belt states often have much higher rates of marital breakdown and teen pregnancy than other regions.

“So Buddhism -- or any number of other religious or secular philosophies -- could get Tiger to the Promised Land that Brit Hume wants for him.”

That’s a matter of opinion, Parson Dave. And it’s one that I do not share. While I can’t speak for them, it’s probably something about 77% of Americans would also find questionable, possibly even repulsive. They’re our Christians.

The little shoulders of unborn babies are not broad enough or strong enough to bear the weight of climate control measures being dangled like live bait by the enigmatic government of China.

But that’s what these innocents are being asked to endure. Nothing could be more unreasonable or cruel. These things matter little to the Chinese communists.

This gruesome reality ratchets up the stakes of the “climate control” movement which so captivates the leadership of much of the “civilized” world.

By philosophy, our own President Barack Obama  is surely tempted to wager America’s future on this controversial and obscenely expensive theory. He will not do so without the approval of the U.S. Congress.

There is plenty of evidence that, should we capitulate to the whims of the socialist governments of Europe -- many of which are already buckling under the weight of massive entitlement programs, rampant union bullying and deficit spending -- we will follow them down the road to ruin.

We will then pay the price for violating every rule of sound fiscal governance that has kept the U.S. solvent through most of our history as a nation.

Asia is at the bargaining table too, where the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), a communist colossus, is beating its chest with swollen confidence. But China, always a cunning manipulator, is playing coy.

Now the twisted plot of the climate change drama is taking a sordid turn. A “victory” in the global warming frenzy might be bought at the cost of lives of the unborn. And this exchange of innocent life for a diminished carbon dioxide output is being openly discussed at the ballyhooed U.N. climate farce in Copenhagen.

A sanitized version of the story is reported in China Daily, a propaganda organ of the communist government. It quotes Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China:

“’The [Chinese] policy on family planning proves to be a great success,” Zhao was quoted by the official Xinhua news agency as saying in Copenhagen, where she is one of Beijing’s delegates at the U.N. climate conference.

“’It not only contributes to reduction of global emission, but also provides experiences for other countries – developing countries in particular – in their pursuit for a coordinated and sustainable development.”

“The 400 million births prevented as a result of China’s policy since it was introduced in the 1970s, and the drop in the child-per-couple average from 5.8 to 1.8, resulted in 1.8 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted each year, Zhao said.

“Critics of the policy say it not only deprives individuals the right to choose how many children they want, but also gives rise to an array of human rights abuses including forced abortion and sterilization, infanticide, sex-selective abortions and the levying of punitive fines or loss of jobs for policy violators.”

And there’s the rub. Of course, the cynical communist leadership couldn’t care less about the murderous practice of state-imposed abortion. Except for the fact that it might cost the Asian behemoth a few public relations points on the world stage.

 Even then, China doesn’t sweat the small stuff. Beijing knows that the left-wing global media cabal will not hold the communists up to ridicule and condemnation for these deplorable policies.

Also ignored -- by feminists and other “defenders” of women’s rights everywhere – is the fact that, in China, the gift of life may be meted out depending of the gender of the child in the womb.

Witness this report from American Life League, published under the title “SEX SELECTION ABORTIONS: THE ULTIMATE IN SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION”:

“The Chinese one-child program has inevitably led from abortion to female infanticide. Since boys are valued more than girls, female infanticide (femicide) is common in China. Even the March 3, 1983 People's Daily admitted that ‘The butchering, drowning, and leaving to die of female infants has become a grave social problem.’ This ‘problem’ was widely reported in the American press as early as 1977.

“It is now not at all uncommon to find Chinese towns with populations of more than 10,000 persons where little girls are almost nonexistent. For example, Jin Mingai, mayor of Daijiawan village, claimed that ‘There is no infanticide here. The peasants would never drown their own daughters.’

“However, there are no girl children at all under the age of twelve in his village, which has a population of 7,500.”

But let’s bring this scandal home to our own shores. We in the U.S. are in no position to point fingers, a fact that is conveniently swept under the rug. The following is also excerpted from the American Life League story:

“Syndicated columnist Mona Charen has correctly pointed out that ‘Abortion on demand has given birth to boys on demand.’ The irony of this situation has not been lost on pro-lifer activists, who secretly smile as they watch NOW, NARAL, and other pro-abortion groups futilely attempt to untangle themselves from this insoluble dilemma.

“In 1973, American abortion pushers achieved victory beyond their wildest dreams abortion on demand for any reason whatever, and unlimited Federally-funded free abortions for poor women. At this time, only one percent of geneticists believed that abortion for sex selection was morally acceptable, and this small minority generally kept their opinions to themselves for obvious reasons. Abortion for selection of the baby's sex was recognized and criticized by many doctors even before the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

"By 1988, the number of geneticists approving of sex-selection abortions had jumped to 20 percent, and this trend shows no signs of abating.”

At the U.N. gathering in Copenhagen, these trivial matters do not matter. The end – not the means – carries the day.

Even if U.S. President Barack Obama, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, do not have the stomach for a fight over this issue (in which they do not believe), the American people should challenge the gory status quo.

Clearly in China's corner, Clinton is going on the record to link population control to the global warming. These details are offered by InfoWorld.com: 

"During a visit to India in July of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed not only the administration's commitment to tackle 'global climate change', but also her willingness to link it to overpopulation. 

"'One of the participants,' Clinton stated, 'pointed out that it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.'"

A couple of months before Clinton's statements, LifeNews.com reported on the comments by Clinton advisor Nina Fedoroff, who stated before BBC One Planet: "We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support any more people. There are already too many people on the planet."

Despite the brash stand taken by Clinton and her underlings, our country must not consent to have this blood on our hands. Not for so questionable a cause as "global warming". Or any other.

So China is the model. Do we follow the communists into the abyss? 

 How have we arrived at this?

NYT UPDATE COPENHAGEN -- U.S. CHARGES PRC CARBON TARGET  INSUFFICIENT

"The United States says it believes that the Chinese emissions target is too low — a top American official called it 'disappointing' the day it was announced. Without a stronger emissions commitment and an agreement to international monitoring by China, Congress is unlikely to approve a tough new domestic climate regime for the United States.

"'If China or any other country wants to be a full partner in global climate efforts, that country must commit to transparency and review of their emissions-cutting regime,' said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a co-sponsor of the climate and energy bill that passed the House in June. 'Without that commitment, other governments and industries, including those in America, will be hesitant to engage with those countries when they try to partner on global warming.'”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58412

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC085.HTM

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

http://www.infowars.com/clinton-connects-overpopulation-to-climate-change/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=2&hp

 

But here we are witnessing a life-and-death struggle in the U.S. Senate where the stakes are as high as what our valiant U.S. troops are facing in Afghanistan.

The circumstances are different. The possibilities are no less frightening, the costs no less sobering. In both theaters – the chaotic Middle Ease, and the U.S. homefront, the battles rages. Freedom, principle, respect, dignity, and lives are on the line.

Overseas, young Americans go in harm’s way, pitting their skills and valor against an enemy which wears no uniform, hides behind non-combatants, and seems to be guided by no sense of decency, honor or fair play. This enemy is fanatical, even suicidal.  

Our valiant fighting men and women have faced fierce, determined foes on the battlefield before, but this is a new, strange and disturbing form of combat. Nonetheless, ours do not shrink from duty. Because they are Americans, they perservere. It is their duty.

Back home, a curious but no less determined and insidious foe squares off against what I will call “our” team. Whereas in the foreign struggle, our fighting forces are young, strong, and virile, with a long life ahead only if they’re lucky, ours are old soldiers, already wounded by life and years, and struggling only for an opportunity to survive.

This domestic enemy likewise wears no uniforms. But they are readily identified. They march under orders from a commander who evidences little compassion for our plight, less understanding of our struggle, and no appreciation for our contributions to the nation during our productive years on earth.

This commander holds most of the cards. And he shows no inclination to shrink from playing them. Unless “our” side gets a break in the next deal, he and his buddies win the pot. In that case, the commander carries the day – for the time being. Even so, the losses for the vanquished will be considerable.

Defeat will mean being deprived of medicines and care which give life. It will mean the onset of increased disability, pain, uncertainty, and even death – not “premature” under these circumstances, but sooner than these elderly, wrinkled and gray-haired Americans expected or deserved.

The “commander” is U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama. His “generals” are Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are waging a cruel campaign. The battlefield is the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

In this arena, liberal Democrats offer arguments that are cunning, deceptive, deceitful. They are carrying the mail for their leader. Like him, they have sold out to radical left-wing schemes intended to erode the power of individuals, and overwhelm it with smothering and invasive governmental bureaucracies. It will be a sad day if the ill-conceived health “reform” monstrosity becomes law.

 Of course, this is being openly debated. Question is – would America be headed for certain disaster if Obama truly is a socialist?

 Probably not. That would be more than tough to prove anyway. The real problem would come only if he acted like a Socialist. And there’s no question he’s doing that.

 Henry Lamb of WorldNetDaily gave notice that he saw the handwriting on the wall when the prescient columnist posted these notes on October 18, 2008:

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot.

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home financing industries.

The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78330

Convinced? Not so fast. Billy Wharton, editor of The Socialist Magazine and co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, proclaims in headlines: ‘Obama’s No Socialist. I Should Know.’

But what does the president himself say about the ticklish issue? This is excerpted from Wharton’s article:

A New York Times reporter recently pinned Obama down with the question, "Are you a socialist, as some people have suggested?" The normally unflappable politician stumbled through a response so unconvincing that it required a follow-up call in which Obama claimed impeccable free market credentials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html

 Doesn’t prove a thing, does it? Got a suggestion for you. If you want definitive information on the story, you might want to show up on Dec. 11 for the SPUSA National Office Holiday Party, 7:00-9:30 pm at 339 Lafayette Street (buzzer #11), New York City. For info on dress code for the shindig, political affiliation, or anything else, go here: natsec@socialistparty-usa.org

Good luck, have a ball, and tell ‘em Verne sent you.

Okay, let’s check out one more source -- Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, the country's largest socialist organization. If it offers any comfort, he disowned Obama, saying he is “most definitely not one of them.” Llewellyn added this pithy nugget:

We don't have a blueprint for socialism. We're not a party, we're a membership organization. We haven't organized ourselves as a party precisely because socialism as a political construct is so weak in this country.

We actually did support Obama over Bush and we often will make political choices if we think they're important. They're not based on which one is socialist, because usually in most cases, unless it's Bernie Sanders, there isn't a socialist alternative. But many times it's important to make a choice and we'll do that. We certainly thought Obama would be a better president for the country than John McCain.

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=frank+Llewellyn+Politics+Daily&s_it=keyword_rollover

 Don’t know about that. So where does that leave us? We got one commentator saying he probably is a socialist, and two socialists who say he isn’t. Throw in my vote (I get 73 votes since that’s my age, and it’s my poll) and what’s the final score? It’s 74-2 saying the man has really whacked-out leftist inclinations, okay?

But what does that prove? Well, you know the old saying – if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . hey, maybe that’s it. Obama is a duck! Well, let’s pluck that bird!

For some, maybe.

For others, the date that will live in infamy is August 6, 1945. On this date, a U.S. B-29 bomber demolished Hiroshima with the first atomic bomb used as a military weapon.

Three days later, a second atomic bomb would level Nagasaki.

Many Japanese are predictably critical of these attacks, although it was they who drew first blood in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. Four years later, the atomic bomb would place an unforgettable explanation point to our retaliation.

But revisionist history in Japan justifies the ugly provocation at Pearl Harbor. So do those Americans who as a habit are bitterly critical of the U.S. armed forces at every opportunity.

The saga of victimhood renews itself every year. Already the airwaves are full of documentaries showing two Japanese cities flattened in a heartbeat. Smoking ruins. Utter desolation. Melted steel. People in agony with their skin burned off. Citizens saturated with radioactivity who would die by the thousands.

Do you sort of choke up when you see that? Actually, if the Japanese had been better scientists, today they might be feeling sorry for America, though I doubt it.

But they weren’t better scientists. Like any marauding society, they built every conceivable weapon of destruction they could muster, and used it mercilessly. They were known for their savagery.

But it wasn’t enough. The race for the technology that would end World War II in the Pacific went to the U.S.

Had it not been for that American superiority, which I know was a gift from God, mushroom clouds might eventually have blossomed over Honolulu, close to where it all started, and perhaps as well over Los Angeles and other U.S. population centers on the Pacific Coast.

As the American juggernaut rolled through the scattered Pacific atolls in costly assaults against entrenched Japanese land forces, Emperor Hirohito had the homefolks built up into a froth, ready to die fighting with guns, pitchforks, clubs, or whatever was at hand to repel the expected U.S. invaders.

Vicious propaganda had convinced average citizens that the invading Americans were insatiable monsters who would kill, maim, rape, torture and even cannibalize every Japanese who fell into the enemy’s clutches.

Mass suicides were anticipated, and a hellish incident on Okinawa fueled that belief. As American forces mopped up resistance on Okinawa to claim its vital airfield, terrified civilians raced to leap off island cliffs to escape the inhumane treatment they expected at the hands of the invading GIs.

It was a horrifying, senseless spectacle that the Americans sought in vain to prevent, although they did save many Okinawans from a tragic death at the foot of the cliffs, persuading them to surrender.

Several things had become clear to the Americans.

The Japanese on the mainland would fight and die to a man, many in banzai charges, and civilian suicides would extinguish many more lives.

And as many as a million American military combatants might be sacrificed in bloody amphibious assaults and vicious infighting.

But another option had appeared. A monster weapon – the atomic bomb – had emerged from U.S. tests ready for deployment.  

President Harry S. Truman, was a feisty, pragmatic man whose slogan was “The buck stops here.” He meant it. It was on his watch that history and fate brought together this fearsome weapon and the Japanese war machine which, though it teetered, would not fall.

Give-‘em-hell Harry decided to give ‘em hell. Realizing that deploying the atomic bomb against Imperial Japan could spare the lives of American troops and win the war, he did the right thing. Without looking back, he dispatched two B-29 bombers to Japan, each with an atomic payload.

The mushroom clouds that rose over Hiroshima, then Nagasaki, signaled that the “sleeping tiger” awakened by the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor had answered the indignity with a sudden, shocking response.

It was payback with stunning finality. But to this day, many Japanese – and some misguided Americans as well – still harbor a convenient disconnect between what started the war, and what ended it.

Between the years of 1968 and 1980, I traveled to Japan a dozen times or more, providing radio and television coverage to N.C. trade missions. I studied the Japanese language at N.C. State University, and, in Japan, avoided the cultural “cocoons” in which many Western visitors isolate themselves while there.

I learned many things about the Japanese during those visits, and made some Japanese friends whom I appreciated and admired.

While most of my time was spent in Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka, I was asked many times if I wanted to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I never cared to. I could not bear to join the ranks of simpering Western apologists who flaunted their guilt over the suffering and death caused by The Bomb. I did not – and do not – share that grief.

The Bomb saved American lives and – curious though it may seem – countless Japanese lives as well.

I don’t subscribe to the radical revisionist history taught not only in Japan, but slavishly devoured by many Westerners as well, alleging that America was the villain in that war, and Japan the victim.

That is a cruel, barbaric lie. That war was brought to us. We learned many cruel lessons from it, including the wisdom of peace through strength, which Ronald Reagan would later champion as a deterrent to enemies of America.

Anyway, for me there are now two dates that will live in infamy – Dec. 7, 1941. And January 20, 2009.

He bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. Excessive respect.

But he gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown a batch of DVD movies, and pointedly misses a joint press conference scheduled to take place when the British leader visited the U.S. in March of this year. Blatant disrespect.

He bows so deep to the Emperor of Japan that he seems to be looking for a lost contact lens. Excessive respect.

But he fails to even show up for the celebration of the fall of the onerous Berlin Wall – a major diplomatic blunder that causes a ripple of derision among America’s British and European allies. Clear and galling disrespect.

It would be easy to say that these disparate incidents have no relationship to one another. I disagree. I think they are disturbingly symbolic of the cultural contradictions that guide Mr. Obama’s erratic course through his presidency.

What could cause these curious clues to surface? Why would Obama have an Asian/Arab complex?

There may be some tantalizing clues in this excerpt from Biography.com:

Barack Hussein Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was born of Luo ethnicity in Nyanza Province, Kenya. He grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British. Although reared among Muslims, Obama, Sr., became an atheist at some point.

Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Wichita, Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he signed up for service in World War II and marched across Europe in Patton's army. Dunham's mother went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved to Hawaii.

Meantime, Barack's father had won a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya pursue his dreams in Hawaii. At the time of his birth, Obama's parents were students at the East–West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Obama's parents separated when he was two years old and later divorced. Obama's father went to Harvard to pursue Ph.D. studies and then returned to Kenya.

His mother married Lolo Soetoro, another East–West Center student from Indonesia. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama's half-sister Maya Soetoro Ng was born. Obama attended schools in Jakarta, where classes were taught in the Indonesian language.

Four years later when Barack (commonly known throughout his early years as "Barry") was ten, he returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, and later his mother (who died of ovarian cancer in 1995).

He was enrolled in the fifth grade at the esteemed Punahou Academy, graduating with honors in 1979. He was only one of three black students at the school. This is where Obama first became conscious of racism and what it meant to be an African-American.

The problem with this president is he shows a distressing tendency to carry these early negative impressions, perceived insults and fancied slights into adulthood, into the presidency, and finally into the very crucible of international diplomacy, where he awkwardly acts out his resentments and favoritism, dragging the United States of America into the muck. He seems driven by his own demons.

Barack Obama is not stupid. Far from it. I think he’s very intelligent. But he doesn’t seem to have a clue how to be head of the most powerful and influential nation in the world. (And the greatest, by the way.) He’s still campaigning, looking now to 2012, while still in the infancy of his first term.

Along the way, he is leaving the impression of suffering from a political and cultural schizophrenia that keeps us all wondering when the real Barack Obama will stand up.

*** The claim that Barack Obama was born in the United States is disputed. 

Sorry, Mr. President. Too many false starts. Go ahead. Go through the motions. But somehow I think you have far too many conflicted emotions, divided loyalties, and trackless cultural wanderings to be believed. At this moment you are merely emulating former U.S. presidents who did the right thing, parroting their tributes, taking cues from their actions, and reading heartfelt statements from your teleprompter.

Next week, you’ll be somebody else.

The liberal U.S. media essentially buried the first real clue to how Obama would react to this tragedy. I happened to see it in a live broadcast as Obama addressed a much-ballyhooed Tribal Nations pow-wow  at the White House. Obama took pains to remind his audience of American Indians that they have much to be resentful about.

“We know the history that we share. It's a history marked by violence and disease and deprivation. Treaties were violated. Promises were broken. You were told your lands, your religion, your cultures, your languages were not yours to keep,” the president declared. (WH transcript)

It is difficult to know exactly at what point the President knew of the Fort Hood mass murders, as the White House transcript I saw did not include these remarks, and there was a Nixonesque “tape gap” reported on the “verbatim” log of the proceedings.

But the live television coverage said it all. For perhaps two minutes, as CNN displayed a glaring on-screen banner proclaiming ‘BREAKING NEWS: Rampage at U.S. Army Post, 12 dead, including gunman, 2 suspects in custody’, Obama continued to schmooze with the crowd – unaware that the television audience was already way ahead of him and wondering when the president would catch on.

It seemed he didn’t want this unwelcome news to rain on his party. One reporter called it “surreal”, and I agree.

He bantered playfully with his subjects before switching finally into the solemn mood required when announcing that something frightful has happened.

President Clinton had the same crippling self-awareness, and was said to “fix his face” before coming to the podium so that his appearance would match the flavor of the occasion.

Obama is more cleverly superficial. “Deep down,” someone has said, “he’s shallow.”

Toby Hamden of Telegraph UK puts it this way, describing Obama’s curiously detached manner as he finally began to address the terrorist act at Fort Hood:

“Completely missing was the eloquence that Mr. Obama employs when talking about himself. Absent too was any sense that the President empathised with the families and comrades of those murdered. Mr. Obama seems a curiously bloodless president. If he experiences passion, he seldom shows it. It is often anyone's guess as to whether an event or issue truly moves him.”

By the time he reached Fort Hood, Obama’s speech writers had paved the way for him, and his speech was actually a tidy bit of memorializing.

Obama did manage this near miss at a display of revulsion for the Fort Hood murders:

“It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.  For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next.” (WH transcript)  

David Warren of RealClearPolitics summed it up rather effectively:

 “This deadly enemy of the West -- the Islamist ideology which holds all Jews, Christians, other non-Muslims, and a considerable number of Muslims, too, to be human filth in need of extermination -- is well infiltrated. Events like that at Fort Hood prove this, and from what I can see, the problem can only grow with the passage of time.”

Since the president speaks for himself, his words clearly speak for him.

Here’s what left me reaching for a tongue depressor as Obama, seemingly unmoved bythe horror and betrayal most of us felt, spoke to the nation in the Rose Garden of the wanton slaughter of valiant U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood:  

“We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

Well, is that sappy enough for you? Thirteen unsuspecting soldiers gathered in a readiness area are fiendishly shot dead in a heartbeat – and an officer of the U.S. Army is the accused killer. The officer is a Muslim. Whether or not this fact figures into the motive for the slayings is not known. Yet it is a fact.

Our president has Muslim influences in his background. Whether or not this fact figures into what he said and how he said it is not known. Yet it is a fact.

Obama, of course, soon fell into the obligatory condolences and utterances of respect for the fallen, but for me the damage was done.

Dare we ask – what conclusions was he so afraid that we might reach prematurely? That because the suspected murderer is a Muslim, we might somehow, as a nation implicate all Muslims?

I don’t know. I do know that I resist being tempted to fall into that trap, no matter how bitter I might be over this senseless loss. And I have confidence that most of us will not feel that.

In America, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Yes. But our nobler inclinations may be tested by what we do know about this situation. And the implications are stunning. If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is brought to trial, and if he is found guilty, I can promise that the bitter gall and sense of betrayal I will feel will be profound.

President Obama knows this. He is viewed as a man chronically unruffled by the vagaries of life in a world of conflict. So he paid homage to the pillars of justice that mark our society, as well he should have. It was the prudent thing to do.

But his words somehow sounded hollow when he spoke of what had happened. Forgive me if I’m wrong, and too harsh in my judgement, but insincerity, I think, is one of the telling flaws in this President’s character.

But I learned fast, and pretty soon was getting a seat at the head table at top farm meetings. They liked my schtick. Pass the biscuits. It was a heady time.

That’s not the kind of free speech I’m talking about here. I mean the free speech that goes along with being an American. It belongs to everyone. Black men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Even white guys like Rush Limbaugh.

But Al and Jesse have conspired – not to deprive Rush of freedom of speech – but to use Limbaugh’s words and beliefs as a club to hurt and demean him. And in the end to make Rush so undesirable that he would be dropped from a group making a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams.

That stinks. But Rush handled the situation well.

The ugly smears are mine, though I draw them from the actual vocabularies of left-wing radicals whose spite often bubbles over like a pot of snake venom when they go after those with whom they don’t agree. The malady seems to affect all of the leftist gabbers to one degree or another. In that sense, it could be called an "Unchained Malady".

Suffice it to say that they waded in swinging – not with their fists, but with their well-exercised wagging tongues.

Fallstrom reported that Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, charging that Limbaugh has been divisive and “anti-NFL” in some of his comments.

Jackson said in a telephone interview that Limbaugh had made his wealth ‘appealing to the fears of whites’ with an unending line of insults against black and other minorities.”  (FANHOUSE)

Some of the team members chimed in, twisting Limbaugh over the coals on a spit. But not everyone joined in the verbal lynching.

Cooler, more dispassionate comments were offered by Rams defensive end Leonard Little, who to his credit side-stepped probes by reporters salivating to draw him into the controversy.

He simply didn’t want to talk about it. Little concluded:

“We’ve got a lot more things to worry about than who’s going to be our owner.”

In America, of course, every citizen is entitled to his opinion. It’s just that, in this case, the Rams team member seems a little more entitled than glib race-baiting showboaters like Sharpton and Jackson. Leonard Little makes his living at the game.

Major sports leagues shouldn’t welcome owners who are divisive and incindiery, said the always divisive and incindiery Sharpton.

While the cunning reverends reached for the Prozac over who’s in charge in the front offices of NFL teams, I expect there was a reason they avoided the breaking news in tennis, where popular champions Venus and Serena Williams have bought into ownership of the Miami Dolphins.

All sweetness and light here. And why not? The two stars of the global tennis world have the two things they need to be qualified for reserved seats in the owner’s box at Land Shark Stadium in Miami. Money and motivation.

Rush brought the same qualifications to the NFL bargaining table. And more. He is a solid fan of the NFL. But the conservative broadcaster was up against a stacked deck. He was blackballed by jealous league honchos and vindictive players.

President Obama should not be spared here. He loves his Chicago, speaks glowingly of it, has his real power base there, and sacrifices unselfishly for his city – jetting to Copenhagen to do the presidential fist-bump with Michele and Oprah in celebration of personally bringing the 2016 Summer Olympics home.

Didn’t happen. Chicago, with Obama laying it all on the line, finished dead last. The president lost a lot of points for that miscalculation.  

So do we say that Obama shouldn’t take a position on the onerous murder of one innocent young man in Chicago? Or twenty? Thirty or more? Well, he stooped to take a personal swipe at a Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, who arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., for shooting off his mouth at a cop.

The Cambridge police “acted stupidly”, the president assured America at a White House news conference. Much of America wasn’t too sure. And White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs bristled at the suggestion that Obama had spoken inappropriately.

This is Mr. Mouthpiece at his bristling best:

"Let me be clear," Gibbs said, according to a pool report. "He was not calling the officer stupid, okay? He was denoting that . . . at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that." (Brian Motopoli, CBS News Political Hotsheet)

Oh, yeah. Can understand why you might say that, Bob – especially where your boss is concerned.  But, you know, it’s high time the president gave serious consideration to realigning his priorities. He appears not willing to risk bringing public attention and derision to Chicago’s bloody reputation for murder, mayhem and gang brutality.

CNN was only one of many media outlets reporting on the murder of Alex Arellano of Chicago. He was struck down by his own.

One of the most disturbing slayings came (May 1, 2009) when the family of Alex Arellano found the 15-year-old's body. He had been beaten, burned and shot in the head.

"It's sad because they didn't have to torture him that way. He never did nothing wrong, never. He was a good kid. It just gets to me. It's crazy," Alex's friend Ashley Recendez said.

Indeed, police say the teen had no criminal record, no gang affiliation. His family says he was well-behaved and shy, almost fearful of strangers. They had recently taken him out of school to protect him after gang members threatened him. (Dave Mattingly, CNN)

 Another high-profile gang murder of a black teen-ager in Chicago was shocking for its brutality. It happened on September 27, 2009.

A videotape of the despicable incident, which took the life of high school honor roll student Derrion Albert, 16, mesmerized and horrified the nation as an amateur video of the murder splashed across the Internet, television, cable networks.

But “mesmerized” stops so far short of a noble goal. We’ve heard this empty lament before. “Galvanized” is what we should hope for.

Prosecutors charged four teenagers with fatally beating Albert, who was walking to a bus stop when he got caught up in the mob street fighting, authorities said. Their main weapon of choice – splintered pieces of railroad ties –  did the job efficiently, used as clubs to methodically pound Derrion Albert to death.

The White House --convenient barrier to personal involvement by the Maximum Leader -- sent mouthpiece Robert Gibbs into the fray. Gibbs, to his credit, at least labeled the incident a "heinous crime", and promised the administration would soon respond.

 Breathe deeply. Now hold it.

 Actually, it was habitual hearse chasers Lewis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson who beat the president to the punch in statements served up with generous helpings of pablum.

 Farrakhan . . . said he was bothered to hear a father say on a TV report that young people were not salvageable. "I believe all of us can be saved," Farrakhan said.

 And, Jackson said, students have the right to attend the "closest and safest school possible" rather than have to take multiple buses to get home.

"Why send these children into harm's way every day?" Jackson asked. "These are war zones. This wasn't an incident, it's a pattern." (Kristen Mack, Chicago Tribune)

That’s all. No call to action. No bitter recriminations directed at the young black thugs who killed the young black man. If, as many black American “spokesmen” claim, the community at large cannot – does not – understand the plight and the needs and the frustrations of black America, then don’t pontificate – educate! Spell out the plan, going beyond the typical blustering at how society has failed. First, justice. Then solutions. Then reconstruction. And throughout -- personal responsibility. This will be the key to the vault. Apparently no one has been able to find that elusive key, or – even worse – able to recognize it when they see it.    

 It would be fair to ask – who permits the area where the young man was killed to remain a war zone? Well, the problem is not being attacked with any recognizable fervor or courage by community leaders or educators in the city.

Meanwhile, our president seems clueless as to what he should do. The delay is costing him big-time, and the public is getting impatient.

 If President Obama doesn’t respond as president to the issue of youth violence in America, then he should at least respond as a resident of his Chicago home-town community and work personally to stop the killings and violence here. (The Black Star Project)

The impression of this inaction points to a debilitating moral failure on Mr. Obama’s part. His curious refusal to stand up for the weak, and roundly criticize those who prey on them, must cause us all to wonder at his character, his honesty, and his real commitment to justice – in Chicago, Washington, and around the globe.

In short – who is this guy?

I have seen no personal quotes from Mr. America indicating his awareness that children are dying, children are being killed, and, most chilling of all, children are killing children.

Look, I have no interest in having the Professor Louis “Pearly” Gates issue  blow over. I know it’s petty and trivial, but that’s what I like about it. I mean, it’s like . . . well, it’s like I want this silly crap to distract Obummer’s ability to stuff a flaky budget-busting gummint health care plan down the throats of protesting Americans!

And if we didn’t have this trumped up idiocy to irritate and bumfuzzle him, I’d be the first to try to get him distracted by something else. Anything else.

There’s another thing. When someone says, “Hey, let’s move on,” it doesn’t show he’s being magnanimous (whatever that means), it really is hard proof that he knows his argument is shot full of holes and he’s embarrassed at what he started but can’t finish. Okay? Well, that’s what Pearly said, in so many words.

Then, our President-in-Chief, who tried to laugh the whole shemozzle off, turned on his best smile (only because his trusty teleprompter said “Smile Now”) and just pretended he’d be buddies with the combatants, or litigants, or whatever they may eventually turn out to be.

And then, for gosh sakes, the leader of the Free World said he thought he could broker a cease-fire if Sgt. Crowley and Pearly would come over to the White House for a beer. Is that rich? I mean, the Obummers are set to go off on a vacation fit for royalty at Blue Heron Farm on Martha’s Vineyard. You can reserve the 28.5-acre retreat for only $35,000 to $50,000 per week.

A news story said the First Family definitely plans to rent the property. Actually, the Obamas plan for us to rent the property, and, speaking for all Americans, I can truthfully say that they deserve the best – our failing, debt-ridden, jobless economy notwithstanding. But listen, these dudes live high. Michele, a fashion maven, has a reported twenty staff assistants who cater to her every whim. One of the lowest paid indentured servants is named Sally M. Armbuster, and she gets $36,000 salary. I think she’s underpaid. Rahm Emanuel has the same job, and he pulls down $172,200, at least according to Mrs. Emanuel. Really? Is he married? I’ll have to get back to you on that. I didn’t check it out.

But where was I? Oh yeah, Baroque had invited Sgt. Crowley and Pearly Gates to the White House for a beer. What? Given the president’s taste for the opulent, as long as somebody else is picking up the check, he should dig a little deeper, and maybe even break for a case of Dom Perignon each for Pearly and the Sarge. I mean get real! You can steal a bottle of this bubbly – vintage 1971 – for a modest $1,153 US if you play your cards right – maybe even less on Shopzilla. And I can’t guess what a deal you could get if you have friends on the black market. (Take it easy, I don’t mean to offend, okay?)

Anyway, let’s say they get together – President Obummer, Professor Pearly Gates, and Sergeant Crowley. What then? Can’t you just see it? The three of them sitting on the grass in the Rose Garden, and Barry axes, “Can’t we all just get along?” Crowley says, “I’ll call it even if Pearly will just pass the church key.” Gates, a black man (look, I just threw that in because it might offend Al Sharpton) retorts, “I will, law dawg, if you’ll get me out of these &%#@?! handcuffs! And don’t ever jive me about a key again. I hate keys to heck.”

Crowley (a white cop, once accused of being a racist) apparently forgot it was 2009. Twist-off tops on beer bottles had rendered the beloved church key obsolete. The president -- always the conciliator, delegator and cogitater -- calls Hillary on his Raspberry and tells her to be in the Rose Garden in ten minutes to mediate a squabble “And bring some 8-8-8 fertilizer for Michele’s vegetable garden,” the leader of the Free World snapped.

I don’t know if Hillary obeyed this order. She’s got a lot on her mind too. She vows she won’t run for president, so that means she probably will. And her personal life is rumored to be coming under scrutiny. Hillary, who’s pretty sharp, dispelled the rumors when she is said to have said, “I did not have sex with that man, Mr. Clinton.”  She also seems suspicious of Sally Armbuster. Can’t blame her for that. Hillary went through a lot of pain with that arm.

I’m tired of this story and have to bring it to a close. And I know you must feel the same way. Bottom line is, I hope that the dust-up between Sergeant Crowley and Professor Henry Louis “Pearly”Gates goes into extra innings. It’s the only way I know of to keep Baroque busy so America’s health care can stay healthy.