Slaughtering The Constitution

Barack Hussein Obama the other day said the “time to talk was over”, and that the time to vote had come. Yet even now the Democrats are preparing to stop talking and not vote, but to deem that the House considers that it has passed the Senate version of ObamaCare. Not only do we have 535 elected “leaders” who vote on bills they haven’t read, they apparently have not read the Constitution that every one of them has sworn an oath to uphold and defend.

Or worse, they simply consider themselves above the tenets of that cherished document and plan to rule by decree. After all, it has become common knowledge that leftists sneer at the rigid constructs of the Constitution and its incessant insistence on the rights of the individual. They have expressed many times in the recent past – our president included – their disappointment with the Founders’ lack of vision concerning modern America, and a deep-seated desire to right those perceived wrongs.

In fact, in 2006 then-Senator Obama gave a radio interview in Chicago in which he complained that the Founders laid out in the Constitution too much of what the Federal government can’t do and not enough of what it must do. And now he is the president.

There once was a time when even Liberals cared about the will of the people even if they disagreed with it. Now, however, they have changed gears and have decided that the people really are too stupid to understand what they need, and so will make those decisions that need to be made for the good of all.

This became evident in the long and arduous negotiations for ObamaCare, and the subsequent birth of the Tea Party movement. Or perhaps it was earlier than that when, last summer, recessing Congresspeople were confronted by extremely agitated constituents over the bailouts and the alleged “stimulus” package.

Then, when the wheels began to fall off the Democrats’ bus, with the loss of several seats – and votes – through both attrition and choice, Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the Triad) began formulating ways to circumvent the legislative process to facilitate their whims. Losing their super majority in the special election in Massachusetts, in which Republican Scott Brown became the 41st vote for the party, the Triad began dangling the prospect of reconciliation to further their wretched dreams of Universal Health Care.

While history sadly has become subjective, recorded history is irrefutable, and the video and audio record of Democrats in 2005 – when they were the minority party – railing against the use of reconciliation became too much for even the wicked to bear, so an alternate plan had to be drawn up.

In rides Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) with a convoluted and completely unconstitutional plan to run the end-around without reconciliation, perhaps relying on the stale notion that most people aren’t paying attention to politics anyway. Being called-out on reconciliation should have provided a clue to these politicians, but we may have misjudged their acumen and understanding of the real world.

In effect, the Democrats are now planning to enact legislation that a majority of the electorate does not want, and they are planning to violate the Constitution in doing so. Slaughter’s plan (The Slaughter Solution) is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation that they have not recorded a vote upon, marking the first time it has ever been done.

Some would call such a foray “innovative”, while others would properly identify it – especially in this context – as illegal. For all of Obama’s complaints about the way the Constitution was written, it remains true that it is not his place to rewrite it. He is merely the 44th steward of the structure and vehicle laid out by much better men, but I fear that he has not learned that lesson despite his generous education.

Perhaps the only lesson that will permeate such a skull will be learned at the polls, both in 2010 and 2012. Provided that there will still be free elections by then.

Obama’s Massachusetts Model

He’s had four years to learn and has not…or has he?

The Obama administration and the Democrats on the Hill – in their zeal to get a massive entitlement program passed in the form of Universal Health Care – continue to tell the American people that it’s all about saving money and cutting costs. Yet every time they come out with their projected costs, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revises those numbers up.

According to reports, Obama’s plans for the nation are modelled on the Massachusetts health care plan. Passed in 2006, the radical overhaul of the state’s health-care system has since experienced an “unexpected” ballooning of costs, forcing the state to raise taxes and cut benefits. In just the first four years of its existence, the cost of the state’s insurance program has nearly doubled, expanding by 42%. A Rand Corporation analysis projects that health care spending in the state will double again in the next decade.

“In the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP).”

As Obama continues to assail the insurance industry and pretend to be the “defender of the consumer” – portraying the battle as one against premium increases – the cost of insurance premiums are the nation’s highest. According to The Daily Caller:

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance premiums in the state is the highest in the nation, and double-digit rate hikes are expected again in 2010.

The worry, shared across the political spectrum, is that the state’s health-care spending will overwhelm the state’s budget. Already, it has forced service cuts that have irked those on both sides of the aisle.

Is this what we need on a nationwide basis? Are the Democrats oblivious to the problems facing the state of Massachusetts, or are they actively seeking to duplicate that disaster on a grander scale? One must truly wonder. Nevertheless, the road to get there looks eerily similar the road Massachusetts took. Also from The Daily Caller:

One problem the state has faced is that it failed to accurately anticipate the true cost of the program. At the time the program was signed into law, estimates indicated that the cost of Commonwealth Care, which is responsible for the program’s biggest single cost, its health insurance subsidies, would be about $725 million per year. But by 2008, those projections had been revised. New estimates indicated that the plan was to cost $869 million in 2009 and $880 million 2010, an upwards increase of nearly 20 percent.

Perhaps it would be a great idea if – before we get too far down this familiar road and end up in the same place – someone slammed on the brakes. Are you listening, Congress?

Eric Massa’s Traficant Moment

It’s a funny thing how Democrats circle the wagons when one of their “good soldiers” is exposed as a criminal, as was the case with William Jefferson of Louisiana. And in the case of Charlie Rangel, Democrat Congressman from Bronx, New York – who may not have been convicted but is clearly outside the laws he helped to write as former Chairman of the House Ways And Means Committee – failure to report income and pay taxes was “no big deal”.

But if one of their own steps out of line on policy issues, they will attack like Jack London’s huskies in White Fang. Eric Massa is the latest casualty, having resigned today over something so trivial in the grand scheme of things, but under heavy fire from his own party. The reason? He said something sexually inappropriate to a male staffer at a private wedding reception. As weak as that may be, it’s not even the real reason. (Besides, they defended President Clinton – who actually sodomized an intern – and attempted to portray the act as “not really sex”).

The real reason, according to Massa himself, is that he was in favor of the Republicans’ idea to actually abide by the wishes of the American people regarding health care and the need to start over, take their time and get it right. Massa had announced his plans to retire by not running in the next election cycle, due to a recurrence of his cancer, but said, in light of the pending investigation, that he would step down as of Monday (today). He did not rescind his resignation, as speculated, and as of 5:00 PM today he is gone, another threat to Obamacare vaporized.

While the railroading of James Traficant is much more heinous than the relatively mild treatment of Massa – at least until all of the particulars are exposed – Traficant was actually imprisoned by a machine that should have been as obvious as the sonar betrayal of cavitating submarine engines. The particulars of that travesty can be found here. (* Note: I cannot vouch for the veracity of this site, but found the detail compelling).

The difference becomes frightening upon closer scrutiny, however, as Traficant was the victim of the Cleveland political machine. The Oval Office, to my knowledge, was never implicated in the proceedings. With Massa, the White House has left figurative forensics all over the place, and while Obama will personally be shielded from any form of culpability, his Chief Advisor Rahm Emanuel is knee-deep in it.

This has all the makings of a made-for-tv movie, and a feast for the likes of Woodward and Bernstein. Will the media seize an opportunity to return to form, or finally collapse in on itself in adoration of this administration? I fear that their sphere of influence was so great as to attract the undivided attention of the new regime. It makes me cherish my relative anonymity, but does little to assuage the sense of doom I feel regarding our freedoms.

In September 2009, Glenn Beck assured politicians on his television show that America would back them regardless of party affiliation if only they would come clean and stand against the assault on the nation. Today, he reiterated that vow. I pray that the loss of Massa is not a deterrent to that end. We must amplify the promise, and draw out the few politicians who have not yet sold their souls.

Massa could not be persuaded to reconsider, but there must be others who have clung to principles. For those, we must reach out. There is no time to elect new ones, and precious little time left to stop the assault currently under way.

America, A Broken Home

Like any one of the myriad movies that emerged throughout the 80’s and 90’s, America has fallen prey to smooth talkers who have had nothing but contempt for her. Our once great nation has been hijacked by people who profess a love they claim we cannot fathom, all the while seeking to transform the majesty into travesty.

I can’t count the number of movies where a nanny or a babysitter was invited into the home, only to slowly and methodically destroy the host family from within, playing on both the sensibilities of the family members and the suppressed animosities of those members who have felt slighted, but never to the point of violence. That is, until the newly introduced entity cultivated those near-dormant feelings.

The great difference between the America of old and tyrannical nations is simple; once, it was considered bad form in this country to speak ill of her, sometimes to the point of physical violence. Folks of my generation simply had no tolerance for bad-mouthing America simply because they loved this nation so much. Tyrannical governments were responsible for that violence because they could not tolerate dissent. Consider the former as akin to “sibling justice” and the latter to…well, tyranny.

We were once a people who defended our “home” as just that; our home, and the denigration of it was considered taboo. Then it became all too fashionable to tear it down from the plaster out. So, our enemies within decided to invoke their “rights” to defile our beloved home by claiming that our rights to demand they shut the hell up was unjust. “After all”, they claimed, “how can you love something if you aren’t willing to recognize its faults?”

Well, compared to a marriage, accepting faults works well, but screaming about them day in and day out will make for a quick divorce. And therein lies the problem today with America. It is the only rationale I can muster to explain the capture of American-born Adam Gadahn, the so-called “American al-Qaeda” man who grew up in Southern California. How could someone grow up in America and hate it so much?

Tolerance. Tolerance is one of the words in the English language that has been corrupted and commandeered to advance the demise of America. Discrimination is another. We are told that tolerance is mandatory for the furtherance of society, but who would actually tolerate the intolerable?

Furthermore, discrimination is what has gotten virtually every species on Earth to where they are now. Discriminating between the cliff ledge or the basin floor, for example. Discrimination is simply a choice which, oddly enough, the left claims sovereignty over and of which they pretend to champion.

Getting back to the siblings who rebelled, William Ayers comes to mind. He could be lumped in with Adam Gadahn. Oh sure, I can hear Timothy McVeigh’s name gurgling in the throats of liberals reading this, but think about it…McVeigh committed a heinous crime. He didn’t declare war on America.

What I find most disturbing is that we have not only encouraged such behavior, we have rewarded it. Once, we considered aberrant family members as “black sheep”, and they were usually ostracized from the clan. I can only imagine the wails from the left regarding the closing paragraph, because only they could make the leap. But it needs to be said.

Judging strictly from his own rhetoric, and that of his mentors and associates, it must be noted that the American family has not only welcomed back the black sheep of the family, they have made him the patriarch. We are officially a broken home.

Irreconcilable Differences

Convince the people that your opponents are lying about your lies by telling a bigger lie. If that isn’t a bona fide part of the liberal/progressive playbook, it should be. Truth be told, I was too lazy to research the phrase’s existence since I just made it up. If someone beat me to it, please advise in the comments section.

Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have nothing to fear from a media that once relished the prospect of exposing the lies of our government. It must be noted, too, that the fortunes of that media relic have turned south in direct correlation to their obsequious behavior regarding the system of which they have obviously dreamt. Talk about a veritable Monkey’s Paw.

But I digress. Gloating over the self-inflicted demise of a once venerable institution such as journalism accomplishes nothing more than a brief and empty sense of vindication, with no real reward other than being proved right. Further, if no one steps up to accept culpability, the vindication is only imaginary, no matter how true.

So, casting aside the flotsam, lets examine the events leading to Obama’s overhaul of America, and the subterfuge utilized to accomplish such a heinous goal.

He has complained bitterly of the “blatant misstatements of the facts” by his opponents, citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data as some form of certification of his own numbers. Yet the CBO analysis of Obama’s policies on Friday predict that they will add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

He also accuses Republicans of misrepresenting the facts on his health care agenda, then blatantly attempts to trick the public into believing that reconciliation has been used in similar fashion many times in the past, which is an outright lie. (Where’s Joe Wilson when we need him?)

There have been twenty-two instances since reconciliation was created that the practice has been used, true. But for Democrats to attempt its use in this instance is the equivalent of using a screwdriver to hammer nails. It was never intended to exclude the opposition party, first and foremost, and it was never intended to be used for anything other than budgetary measures, not sweeping overhauls to anything on the magnitude being proposed here.

Of the twenty-two times reconciliation has been used, only seventeen of the measures passed, and virtually all of them had true bi-partisan support, many of them in large numbers. It has never been used when one party is united in opposition. So for Obama – who, along with his fellow Democrats were vehemently opposed to the use of reconciliation just five years ago – to suggest that it would be a pretty good idea now is ludicrous, not that the media has noticed.

One must also wonder if Obama called Senator Robert Byrd – a co-author of the reconciliation process – after a letter he wrote to his colleagues just under a year ago was brought to light to demonstrate his then-opposition to the use of reconciliation. Of course, Byrd has recently come out in support of reconciliation, but his April 2009 letter clearly says otherwise.

The disingenuousness lies in that Byrd now claims he is still against reconciliation being used for health care reform, but it’s perfectly legitimate to use it for the “fix” currently being promulgated. I’m reminded of a father telling his teen that he can’t have the car, but he can have the keys, and then being shocked to see a fresh hundred miles on the odometer.

It shall be interesting in the coming weeks to see if these inglorious bastards inflict this travesty on the American people, and then watching the reaction in November.

Not Under My Roof

Any rebellious teen has certainly heard those words from their parents. When pushing the limits of authority by demanding rights that do not exist, the authoritarian correctly reminds the offending plaintiff that as long as he pays the bills, he makes the rules. The remedy is that of which every soon-to-be adult dreams; leaving the confines of a perceived totalitarianism in pursuit of their own domain, where they make their own rules.

Then it happens, and reality sets in…sure, it’s good to be king of your castle, but as every kid eventually learns, adults cannot “do whatever they want”. There are stringent responsibilities that require discipline. If managed properly and diligently, life can be good, but if neglected, life has a way of crushing the indecisive.

It is this rite of passage that we have all passed through that has me the most perplexed in light of the masses clamoring for a “nanny state”. My only explanation is that our youth has been conditioned to fail and, therefore, beg for the expansive umbrella of “government care”, somehow convinced that they can finally both be adults and “do what they want” without the worries of personal responsibility.

What they fail to realize is the simple truth of trading one cage for another. And the irony lies in the fact that the “cage” of their youth was guarded by parents who truly loved them and tried to guide them in the best ways possible and in their best interests, while the newer, larger cage which they willingly enter is administered by people who care not a whit about their well being but only about their votes and their tax dollars.

As the federal government expands its authority, it is already obvious that control of our lives is the ultimate goal. If they are going to pay for our health care, for example, they will tell us how to be healthy. This includes what we eat, drink and smoke. It also includes what we wear in certain weather conditions. As long as they are “paying the bills” we will be compelled to live by their rules.

So soon there will be no escape from an iron grip of any kind, be it the strict rules laid down by parents or the same by the government. We shall remain perpetual children subject to the declarations of others. The dreams of freedom will be shattered and along with them, the hopes we all once cherished and anticipated. Is this what we have fought, struggled and bled for?

The human spirit has historically been strong, and – I personally believe – the American spirit has been exemplary, but one must wonder what the tensile strength is and when it will succumb to the massive weight of the oppressive machinations of those who were once viewed as “public servants”. How long can the will of people resist the relentless assault? Every person has his breaking point.

I pray that people wake up soon, and I also pray that they make their children acutely aware of the greatness America once represented. I would also suggest that those with adolescents begin asking their children – who may be on the cusp of rebellion – and their teens who are likely in the throes of the same, how they would like to abide by the same strict regulations for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps that cold “slap” in the face would wake up the youth to the attack currently under way on their desired and deserved freedom. It’s an idea. Maybe if they’re tired enough of hearing “not under my roof” they will launch a genuine rebellion and save themselves. And all of us.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Considering the fact that America was founded largely by disgruntled Europeans disillusioned with the homeland, our current state of affairs is quite puzzling. That is until one remembers that those who are attempting to affect the radical changes to our very fabric today are not descended from Europe, but from nations who have long harbored envy for America.

These are people who capitalized on the grace of America, perhaps in lieu of more stringent immigration restrictions in places that may have been their first choices, such as most European countries. Nevertheless, they seem to have settled here for the purposes of expediency while actually endeavoring to create the environment here that excluded them initially.

Certainly it can be argued that those in charge – with the exception of our relatively new president – do indeed share the heritage of the majority of us. But the constituency to which they pander is comprised increasingly of more recent immigrants, and when combined with the new Chief Executive of America, who has his roots entrenched in Indonesia and Kenya, it becomes clear that a complete restructuring of our nation is under way. The ideals of our founders have fallen into the cross hairs of those who would completely remake our image.

What is most frustrating is the perfect storm of emotion that has been fostered and promoted by these proponents of radical change, for they have successfully propagandized our citizens – through the public school system – into a sense of guilt that would be the envy of any over-possessive mother. Our kids – who now approach adulthood – have been conditioned to believe that they owe a debt to everyone considered beneath their own social stature.

Worse yet is that they have been convinced that the only way to atone for their “sins” is to sacrifice all that they have ever possessed to the government for redistribution to the “needy”. They have also been conditioned to accept notions that any rational person would reject, such as the foolhardy concept that in order to save our planet, people should immediately surrender more of their earnings, despite evidence that our climate change has been manipulated to facilitate such ideas.

The question then becomes; where do we go next? America was a big continent that was mostly vacant when we first arrived. We did well way back when, eliciting the emulation of places like France and the respect of our former oppressors in Britain. Now, however, most of the land masses of the planet are inhabited.

Where do we start over should it come to that?

The Battle For America

History is strewn with the truths of those who were once considered heretics. Glenn Beck may not be Galileo, but the agenda he has been painting lately regarding the “progressive” takeover of America is chilling nonetheless, and the reactions of his intended targets have been predictable, to say the least.

Children in my day learned much more at the knees of our grandfathers than today’s kids learn in government schools, which have switched gears toward more accelerated goals of alleged achievement at the expense of a more devoted bequeathing of actual history. Numbers – based on a government criteria – have become the desired end-game in what today passes for education. Sadly, the kids have really learned nothing more than how to satisfy the whims of their “masters” in order to advance to the next level, also set by the government.

Once set upon this path, which in actuality is nothing more than a maze with the human equivalent of a block of cheese at the end, students are conditioned to the ways of the teachers, never encouraged to reason but rather, to accept and recite the version of truth laid out for them. This then becomes a false reality to them which they in turn bestow upon their own children. This forges a path devoid of any form of resistance for future generations of students, who willingly – and unwittingly – accept as truth whatever is fed to them by the particular institution they attend.

The incredulous question, “What the hell are they teaching these kids?” has been asked by countless parents over the last few decades, and while some have marched to their children’s’ schools to demand answers, most have simply shrugged in resignation to the trends of the nation. And the few who have demanded valid explanations have been castigated as antiquated or, worse, relics who refuse to move beyond racist ways.

Yes, racist. It always comes down to that tried and true line of attack, which sends most people quietly to their rooms, unable to comprehend the charge, but somehow feeling that it may have merit. Usually, the ultimate response is to simply remain quiet and avoid further scrutiny.

That is, until the Tea Party Movement began to take shape. Comprised of people from all races and ideological aspects, the Tea Party is the culmination of the vast majority of average people who have become fed up with being pushed around and intimidated, both by extreme left and right wings.

Beck has been pushing the notion of Communists versus Nazis, and the idea does have merit. The left (Communists) insist that government should rule supreme and “help the downtrodden”, spreading the property of ordinary citizens who labored for their fruits to those who have not, but whom the government deems “needy”. The right (Nazis) espouse the elimination of unproductive citizens.

Then there are the People, the people of the Tea Party, who believe that government should stick to what it was originally intended for, at least in America, and decist from all other endeavors “on the people’s behalf”. The people I have met from Tea Parties don’t care about the color of one’s skin. They do, however, take an acute accounting of one’s character. That concept has a certain ring to it, doesn’t it?

And has anyone noticed the glaring irony in the lefts philosophy that the labors of the industrious are fair game for the sloth of the rest? Further, is it not ironic that the most repressive regimes on the planet are named “the Peoples Republic” this or that? And that the engines of these despotic covenants more often than not are led by the “Labour Movement”?

It is small wonder that home schooling is on the rise. One can only hope that a new generation of Americans – about to achieve adulthood – will be armed with the true knowledge of historical events, and lacking in the indoctrination that so many of their peers have been victim to, for it may be the very salvation of our country that hangs in the balance.

Debating Moot Points

Our politicians have a way of inserting themselves into areas of Americans lives where they have no place, and our media seems oblivious to the infractions. The most glaring example of this is the current hand wringing over what the federal government should do to “solve” the health care problems in this country.

Democrats have always felt it their responsibility to meddle in our lives, somehow believing that the people simply cannot function without them. The surprising aspect of this all is that the Republicans allowed themselves to be dragged into an argument over an idea that should be summarily dismissed based on the Constitution.

Recently a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to show where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to mandate individual purchase of health insurance. Her response was, “Are you serious”? That bit of arrogance was quickly forgotten, when it should have elicited howls of outrage from everyone, especially the media.

Now, when Republicans are asked what Congress should do to “fix” health care, they offer their own solutions, but that is the wrong answer. The only correct answer to that question is simply, “Nothing. It’s none of our business”. Period.

Another item that leaves me nearly speechless is the current attempts by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and his cohorts from Guantanamo Bay to New York to stand trial in civilian court. The raging debate in this matter continues to be over the judgement of the idea and whether such a spectacle would place Manhattan in jeopardy of more terrorist attacks.

In defending this decision, President Obama – an alumnus of Harvard Law School – assured the American people that KSM would get a fairer trial than he would have in Gitmo military tribunals. He also asserted that KSM would be found guilty and executed. This was also echoed by the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. How could alleged experts in legal matters be so ignorant of the law? My Cousin Vinny would find it child’s play to get these trials dismissed in the preliminary hearings.

And yet the powers that be, both at the federal level and the local level, continue to discuss the possibility of moving the “trials” elsewhere in New York, when anyone with a matchbook cover law degree knows that any possibility of conviction is futile, given the rhetoric of the administration.

One must wonder just what caliber of mental acumen is running our country. And the question must also be asked, what happened to the “watchdogs”?

Alito To Prez: You Lie!

As Ruth Bader Ginsberg appeared to doze off, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito – who was alert – did a quieter impersonation of South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson in response to a nearly unheard of rebuke of the High Court during a State of the Union Address. With the world as an audience, President Obama took a direct swipe at the Supreme Court’s recent decision to void much of the McCain-Feingold travesty.

In the midst of yet another narcissistic, hour-long complaint about the very job he fought so hard to attain, Obama said of the Court:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Alito’s seemingly subdued reaction – no doubt necessitated by the sense of decorum so cavalierly abandoned by the president – was, in reality, not much different than Joe Wilson’s nearly a year ago. “Simply not true” is a first cousin of “You lie!”

Alito’s facial contortions were an indicator of the force with which he meant his silent words. His accompanying look of incredulity spoke volumes of Obama’s utter lack of veracity, and one must wonder whether Alito – if he had been watching the speech on television – would have flung his footwear at the screen.

Which also makes me wonder if the president inadvertently stimulated the economy with the rest of his speech, causing a run on Best Buy. I’m sure that there were a great many others across the country who were not encumbered by the protocol responsible for Alito’s restraint, and whose frustrations boiled over at some point.

The president continued his juvenile finger pointing, blaming everyone and everything for the nations woes and refusing to accept any culpability, all the while vowing to work hard to right our course. The problem is that his “solutions” are nothing more than accelerating the practices responsible for those woes. He’s going to continue to borrow and spend trillions of dollars and crow about saving a few billion through “cuts”. Sadly, too many people will only be cognizant of the alleged savings and cheer the president.

Obama says that job creation is now his priority, despite the recent urgency of his failing health reforms. His answer to the unemployment situation does not seem designed to help, but rather to exacerbate the problem through even more prohibitive taxes on the very engine of the economy; “big business”. He renewed his call for “bipartisanship”, but common ground is not really what he seeks, unless it means hopping the fence to land in his yard. As long as you agree with him, that’s called bipartisanship.

I haven’t seen an official tally yet, but by my count, Obama referred to himself 102 times, though I may have missed a few due to my own howls of frustration and complete astonishment at the president’s level of hubris. Fortunately I was able to resist the urge to hurl inanimate objects at the beautiful television – a gift from my children – as I watched.