New Issue Up!!!

That's right, folks, the new issue of Common Conservative is up and awaiting your perusal.

The Chief takes Barry to the woodshed over the fear-mongering he's attempting with this health care fiasco.

Larry Simoneaux gives out some more food for thought on a host of issues.

And Marcie and I round out the staff articles by taking a look at Sarah Palin's departure.

Tom Proebsting kicks off the guest columns with a piece on the GOP; he offers them a piece of advice that, likely, they won't listen to. Why? Because it's more sound than anything else they have right now.

Ryan Coates finds reason to hope as the GOP tries to rebuild itself.

John Lillpop puts the microscope over the recent pay-to-play "scandal" at the WaPo.

Dario Predazzi looks at President Bush's associations with Latin America.

Dr. Robert Owens recently took a "workation" and took the pulse of the nation. Needless to say, a lot of people are worried.

And Harold Witkov draws and interesting comparison between Star Trek and living in Barry's America.

As usual, have fun reading, folks!

Publius II

Know that House health care plan? Yeah, it's a disaster

Th health care debate is about to ramp up in Congress. Now, we know we don't have the amount of readers that, say, Michelle Malkin, Hot-Air, Glenn Reynolds, or even Ace of Spades has, but trust us when we tell you that you, as American, have one job -- Melt this insane idea down the way we did immigration reform back in 2006. Blow up the phones, faxes, and e-mail in-boxes in Congress. (You can locate your representatives e-mail address at the House.gov website.) The number to the Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-225-3121. We need to kill this now, once and for all. This reform idea is a disaster, and James Pethokoukis lays out nine reasons why this is a bad, bad idea:

It’s not the first Obama tax hike. This tax would be in addition to the $1 trillion in new taxes that Obama called for in his budget released earlier this year. (And then there’s cap and trade, remember.) And if healthcare reform costs more than expected — what are the odds of that, you think? — the surtax would go up.

It pushes income tax rates above a key threshhold. Once you take into account state income taxes, the top tax rate would sneak above 50 percent. Research by former White House economist Lawrence Lindsey has found that rates above 40 percent really start to hit economic growth especially hard.

It’s risky in a weak economy. Democrats love the “consensus view” when it comes to climate change, so how about the economy? The consensus view is for unemployment to hit double digits this year and stay high throughout 2010 and beyond as the economy staggers to its feet. Even Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said “it seems realistic to expect a gradual recovery, with more than the usual ups and downs and temporary reversals.” In a “long recession” environment, do we really want a policy that, according to research that current White House economic adviser Christina Romer conducted at Stanford University, is “highly contractionary.”

It actually makes America’s healthcare problem worse. Entitlements, including Medicare, will eventually bankrupt the economy unless action is taken. Agreed. But lowering the potential U.S. growth rate will only make those problems worse by generating lower tax revenue and making the overall pie smaller than it would be otherwise. Yet many economists think government interventions in finance, housing, autos, energy and now healthcare will do just that. And adding layers of additional new taxes helps how?

It makes the tax code more lopsided and inefficient. As it is, the top 1 percent of Americans in terms of income pay 40 percent of taxes. Not only would this plan exacerbate this imbalance, it adds further complexity to the tax code. Most tax reformers favor a simpler system with fewer brackets and deductions matched by a lower rate. Indeed, Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center points out the following:

Many of the uber-rich are unlikely to pay much more in taxes than they do now, despite the rate increase. Since we’d be returning to pre-1986 rates, we shouldn’t be surprised when the very wealthy reprise their pre-1986 sheltering behavior. The hoary financial alchemy of turning ordinary income into capital gains, morphing individuals into corporations, and deferring compensation will return. Remember, the targets of these tax hikes are the people who can most easily manipulate their income. The bad old days of bull semen partnerships may not return, but I suspect the financial Merlins are already cooking up new shelters for what promises to be a booming new market.

It hurts U.S. competitiveness. America already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Under the House plan, the top U.S. income tax rate would be higher than the OECD (advanced economies) average of 42 percent. France and Germany, by contrast, are looking to keep rates stable or lower them. Pro-growth China doesn’t even tax investment income.

It ignores the lessons of Clinton. Democrats love to point out how the Clinton tax increases didn’t tank the economy back in the 1990s. Oh, you mean the economy that was expanding for more than two years before he signed his tax increases? The economy is far weaker today and may be anemic for some time given the history of economies that suffered a banking crisis.

It ignores the lessons of 1937. The slowly recovering 1930s economy weakened again in 1937 and 1938. Again, Christina Romer tells all:

In this fragile environment, fiscal policy turned sharply contractionary. The one-time veterans’ bonus ended, and Social Security taxes were collected for the first time in 1937. … GDP rose by only 5% in 1937 and then fell by 3% in 1938, and unemployment rose dramatically, reaching 19% in 1938. The 1937 episode is an important cautionary tale for modern policymakers. At some point, recovery will take on a life of its own, as rising output generates rising investment and inventory demand through accelerator effects, and confidence and optimism replace caution and pessimism. But, we will need to monitor the economy closely to be sure that the private sector is back in the saddle before government takes away its crucial lifeline.

Except in this the case, Uncle Sam is not taking away a lifeline but tightening the noose.

It pays for a wrong-headed healthcare reform plan. Health exchanges, a public option, subsidies, taxes … well, we could go on and on. Or we could try to create a simpler consumer-driven market. Harvard Business economist Regina Herzlinger recommends reforming the tax system by making the money spent by employers on health insurance available as cash, tax-free, to employees. “Insurers would then compete for customers with policies that offer better value for the money,” she wrote in an analysis for consultancy McKinsey. Not even on the Obamacrat radar screen, though.

This plan will literally wreck the economy as Veronique de Rugy outlines in this post at NRO's The Corner:

In order to pay for the $1 trillion health-care plan, they won't be cutting spending (it's probably too 1990s for today's lawmakers) but they will be imposing new taxes — surtaxes in fact — and fees and penalties. Finally, America will become like its European counterparts, a place where it's painful to work hard and be rewarded for it.

Read this New York Times article about how the plan will be paid for and cry. A sample:

Starting in 2011, a family making $500,000 would have to pay $1,500 in additional income tax to help subsidize coverage for the uninsured. A family making $1 million would have to pay $9,000.

Employers who do not provide health insurance to workers would generally have to pay a fee or penalty to the government. The fee would be equal to 8 percent of wages for an employer with an annual payroll of more than $400,000.

Mais bien sur! In a high-unemployment environment, let's raise the cost of employing people.

And:

The surtax would apply to any adjusted gross income exceeding $280,000 a year for an individual and $350,000 for a couple filing a joint return. The tax rates would range from 1 percent to 5.4 percent.

Who wants to bet that the number of people filing a joint return will collapse? Moi! (I have to practice my French, since that's where we are heading.)

I know that a lot of people would click their tongues and say "The rich deserve to pay more." Above, Mr. Pethoukoukis reminds people of what Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center stated about how the rich would dodge these new taxes:

Many of the uber-rich are unlikely to pay much more in taxes than they do now, despite the rate increase. Since we’d be returning to pre-1986 rates, we shouldn’t be surprised when the very wealthy reprise their pre-1986 sheltering behavior. The hoary financial alchemy of turning ordinary income into capital gains, morphing individuals into corporations, and deferring compensation will return. Remember, the targets of these tax hikes are the people who can most easily manipulate their income.

This plan is a prescription (pun intended) for economic disaster. In a severely weakened economy, such as our own is right now, adding a heftier tax burden to the people is not the solution. Remember, when the rich shelter their money, what happens to those new taxes? Do they go away? Hell no. They get passed onto the next level of citizens which means the upper middle class and middle class taxpayers will pick up the burden; a burden they already can't sustain.

Real health care reform can be achieved, but forcing this plan on the American public will mean that our private insurance we have will fold, and we'll be forced to have the nationalized health care that we defeated by in the early 1990s. HillaryCare was a catastrophe then, and it's still one today.

Publius II

ADDENDUM: I forgot to include something else in this post. James R. Edwards, Jr. pens a piece for National Review which makes a valid point, especially at this particular time: "It’s hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap." From his piece:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has insisted the Senate will deal with immigration and health reform separately. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) told the Dallas Morning News in May, “We’re not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That’s too politically explosive.”

But it’s hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap. Approximately 15–22 percent of the 46 million residents of the United States without health coverage are illegal aliens. That’s about 9 or 10 million people. More generally, a third of the foreign-born are uninsured, Census data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies show. That means something like 12.6 million people, or more than a fourth of the total uninsured, are immigrants, both legal and illegal. Since 1989, immigration is responsible for 71 percent of the rise in those without health insurance. The fact is, the problem of the uninsured would be a more manageable one if the U.S. were not admitting millions of uninsured immigrants.

As they say, folks, read it all. We have to stop this plan here and now.

Publius II

Hardball government-style

Some would call this a veiled extortion attempt by the Executive Branch. Captain Ed notes what caused this reaction from Barry and Company:

In a coordinated response to comments made by an Arizona Republican senator calling for a the stimulus bill to be halted, the Obama administration this week coordinated a series of letters to the governor of Arizona, with the implicit message: put up or shut up.

Arizona Republicans responded that the White House was bullying their state.

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said of the $787 billion stimulus package, "the reality is it hasn't helped yet. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it."

A day later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer received letters from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar all pointing out the billions headed to Arizona.

Kyl "publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren't presently underway," LaHood wrote to Brewer, a Republican. "I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know."

The assorted Cabinet members that sent out letters put the figures in writing for Governor Brewer, and as Captain Ed points out, based on some quick math, Arizona's cut is less than 1/50th of the total stimulus money being spent. What's even more brazen about this is that the Obama administration is pushing the idea that they're giving the state some sort of "reward" when in fact they're simply giving money back to the states they've already paid to the federal government. Think of it this way. Remember those initial refund checks we got back after the Bush tax cuts? That was money we overpaid the federal government. President Bush even told the American people it was our money.

The Obama administration is acting like the US just got a windfall profit from something like a lottery, and they're benevolently sharing it with the nation. That's completely disingenuous.

Worse, these threats basically amount to extortion. That's why the headline and byline at Hot Air is so spot-on. "Nice state you got there, Kyl; shame if something happened to it." Call it cliche, but coming from the Chicago Machine presidency, it's vaguely like Al Capone just threatened our state. Well, Arizona may not be as bold or audacious as Texas, but we're not the sort of people to respond to threats by rolling over for anyone.

States taking the stimulus money are trying to spin it as necessary. No it's not. It's not helping anyone right now at all. We know Barry has bragged about the "jobs" he's helped to "create" in this recession, but his numbers are fuzzy, at best, and misleading at worst. Let's recall that when the stimulus passed, the president said he didn't expect unemployment numbers to go above 8%. We're now sitting at 9.5%, which marks the second consecutive set of numbers that show the unemployment problems are getting worse as this money supposedly is accepted by the states, not better. And just last week the president said he expected to see the unemployment numbers rise in coming months -- the very time that he said the stimulus should be kicking into high gear.

If the second half of 2009 is supposedly when the stimulus is supposed to really kick in, and start helping ease the recession, why would we see unemployment numbers go up? The numbers should stabilize and begin dropping, shouldn't they? This is evidence the stimulus isn't working, and that the president has no idea what he's doing when it comes to the economy. The damage he is doing is one of two things. It's either intentional or uninformed and ill-educated.

The states that are suffering the most could help alleviate their problems by doing two things. Cut taxes across the board -- income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, yadda, yadda, yadda. Put the money back in the people's pockets and into the pockets of businesses. This would greatly help each state in the Union. The second thing that should be done is suspend all non-essential spending by state legislatures. Most of the states hardest hit, like California and Michigan, helped cause the bulk of their problems with rampant spending and heavy-handed taxation.

The states should follow my two pieces of advice, and tell the White House where they can stick that stimulus money. If this is how the White House is going to run the show -- engaging in extortion -- then the states should react the way you would to a bully. Stand up to them, and tell them "Thanks, but no thanks, and quit trying to do us any favors. You suck at it."

Publius II

Most ethical Congress ever? Not so much ...

Democrats promised the people of this nation to run the most transparent and ethical Congress ever. That was, of course, before they passed the $787 billion Pork-A-Palooza, the $410 Omnibus bill chock full of earmarks and pork, and before a certain representative assembled an amendment to benefit a "green bank" and certain family members:

Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado inserted a provision into the recently passed House climate change bill that would drum up business for "green" banks, such as the one he has invested in and his family and a political donor helped found in San Francisco.

The bill calls on bank regulators to promote green banking and says federal dollars should be used to support energy-efficient home improvements at government-funded housing projects.

Mr. Perlmutter, a two-term Democrat, has two investments in the 3-year-old New Resource Bank, which calls itself the nation's first green bank. Among other environmentally conscious banking products, the bank offers home equity loans for consumers to make their homes more energy efficient, in addition to construction loans for green builders.

A Perlmutter spokeswoman stressed that the bill provisions benefit any bank that offers qualifying products.

"Any bank can use this or take advantage of this, period. So it's equal opportunity," Leslie Oliver said.

"New Resource Bank was not even on the radar screen" when the congressman first introduced his ideas in a bill called the Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods (GREEN) Act last session, she said, adding that four hearings have been held on the bill, which passed the House last year.

New Resource also lists Deana Perlmutter, the congressman's former spouse, and his father, Leonard Perlmutter, among those who have invested "seed capital and effort" to get the venture off the ground, according to the bank's Web site.

Mr. Perlmutter's sponsorship of the GREEN Act given his financial stake in the bank raises ethical questions.

It should raise some ethical questions because whereas his amendment might benefit all of the banks like New Resource, it is directly benefiting the very bank that he, his ex-wife, and his father are investors in. According to the founder of the bank, Peter Liu, they have a small investment in his bank, but that matters not. The House Ethics rules are rather explicit:

"Although the term 'conflict of interest' may be subject to various interpretations in general usage, under federal law and regulation, this term 'is limited in meaning; it denotes a situation in which an official's conduct of his office conflicts with his private economic affairs.' The ultimate concern 'is risk of impairment of impartial judgment, a risk which arrises whenever there is a temptation to serve personal interests.' "

Again, while the amendment benefits all "green" banks, the bank he's invested in will also benefit. This is clearly a conflict of interest, and his actions should be referred to the House Ethics Committee.

Publius II

GOP concerned about Sotomayor after first day of questioning

Byron York's piece in the Examiner today takes a look at the fact that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee believe they're being lied to by Sonia Sotomayor. And if she's not lying, she sure as Hell isn't being entirely truthful:

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are convinced that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has not been candid with them in under-oath testimony about her speeches and legal activism. But given the assurance that majority Democrats will vote to confirm Sotomayor no matter what, the GOP effort against her is largely an attempt to convince other Republicans that Sotomayor has not earned a vote for confirmation.

Republican aides worked through the night, Tuesday into Wednesday, studying the 108-page transcript from Tuesday's hearing. They believe Sotomayor told a variety of stories, none of them entirely truthful, to explain her series of infamous "wise Latina" speeches. And they question her efforts to distance herself from the work of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, on whose board she served for twelve years in the 1980s and early 1990s.

For example, in response to questioning from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sotomayor denied involvement in PRLDEF litigation which argued that the denial of taxpayer-funded abortions amounted to a form of slavery. One brief, in 1980, compared the withholding of taxpayer abortion funding to the Dred Scott decision, and another, in 1992, argued that for poor women, especially blacks, denying taxpayer-funded abortion violated "the right to privacy in matters of body and reproduction -- a right that was trammeled with state sanction during centuries of slavery."

Sotomayor testified that she "never reviewed" and "wasn't aware of what was said" in the abortion briefs. Yet Sotomayor served on PRLDEF's litigation committee at the time, and a report last May in the New York Times, citing several former board members, said that, among the PRLDEF board, Sotomayor "stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases." The paper reported that for Sotomayor's entire 12 years on the board, "she played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights."

On capital punishment, in 1981 Sotomayor signed a PRLDEF memo opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York State, arguing that "capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society." On Tuesday, when Graham asked whether she had "challenge[d] the death penalty as being inappropriate punishment, because of the effect it has on race," Sotomayor answered that she had "never litigated a death penalty case personally."

"Did you ever sign a memorandum saying that?" Graham asked.

"I signed the memorandum for the board to take under consideration, what position on behalf of the Latino community the fund should take on New York State reinstating the death penalty in the state," Sotomayor answered. "It's hard to remember, because so much time has passed."

On the issue of Sotomayor's infamous 2001 "wise Latina" speech, Republicans are more skeptical now than before Sotomayor began her attempts to explain the remarks. In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the committee, Sotomayor said that the "wise Latina" remark was "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat...It was bad, because it left the impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge."

Republicans pointed out that Sotomayor gave versions of the "wise Latina" speech at least six times over the years. "Fell flat?" asked one senior GOP aide. "Well, it fell flat six times. If you said this one time, and it fell flat and you stopped using it, that would be one thing, but when you've said it repeatedly over a ten-year stretch, it's very hard to believe that it is anything other than what it appears to be. It's only fallen flat now that she's been called on it.

Democrats on the committee have not offered an extensive defense of the "wise Latina" remark, in part because they appear reluctant to acknowledge that Sotomayor actually said it. Early in Tuesday's session, committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy substantially misquoted Sotomayor's speech when he said to her, "You said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions…'" In fact, Sotomayor said that, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [Emphasis added.] If Sotomayor had said only what Leahy attributed to her, it is doubtful there would ever have been any controversy.

It's clear that she's not being entirely honest about her past, especially her past when serving on a certain board or two. But this isn't the only thing that's lodged in her past that should be examined. There is the matter of "Sotomayor & Associates" that the NY Times picked up on, and Patterico's guest blogger DRJ noted. That is an ethics problem because there was no one but her doling out legal advice. The excuse offered by the White House? "She needed a name, and it's not a big deal she used 'and Associates.'" To the White House, she didn't break a law (which she didn't), and it wasn't unethical (yes it was unethical because she represented herself as a firm with multiple lawyers.) In fact, DRJ points out this:

Apparently this story was first noticed by Eric Turkewitz, a NY attorney and blogger, and he followed up with a post that suggests why the White House response focused on advisory vs mandatory actions: Because there is a 1973 New York ethics advisory opinion that says it’s misleading for a lawyer to use “& Associates” in a business name unless s/he has 2 or more associates.

It's still misleading, and the White House's excuse doesn't wash. I may have a good deal of knowledge when it comes to the law, but I'm no lawyer, nor do I ever represent myself as being one. (That could get me in serious trouble.) But where is the trouble for her? Paul Caron took note of another Sotomayor story by the Times on the same day. Mr. Caron and Glenn Reynolds wonder if "Sotomayor & Associates" might have been some sort of tax dodge. It's not like it's uncommon in Barry's administration, to be honest.

Will she be placed on the high court? Yes, she will. Hell, the Democrats have the votes to get her out of committee and out of the Senate. The Republicans don't have to vote for her at all, and based on yesterday's Q & A with her, it's pretty clear that the few, if any, Republicans will vote for her.

Publius II

Someone hasn't gone quietly into the night

Why the above graphic care of Gabriel at AoSHQ and The Heritage Foundation? Because a certain thorn in the Left's backside has penned an op-ed in the WaPo today. And as always, Sarah Palin pulls no punches:

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

She's right, as are so many who are fighting the passage and implementation of "crap and tax." It will be devastating to the US economy, and it's about time someone in the party stepped forward to really take this to the president as no one else seems to be making the argument. Of course, what can we expect from a Congress that, at least on some level, has bought into the global warming BS. If you haven't read or heard it yet from the lips of the Goracle, on 7 July he stated that this bill, and others like it, would help bring about "global governance". See this isn't just about robbing the people of this nation of their wealth. This is an attempt to control us in every facet of our lives.

They will tax us on every aspect of energy use, no matter how small it may be. And for those that don't use nearly as much as others, to make it fair, they'll likely see a tax that hits them just for being, well, alive. After all, we've had this crap rammed down our throats for the last few years that the current carbon dioxide levels are dangerous. Really? Then I guess the science I learned back in junior high and high school was wrong. After all, I was under the impression (and the good brothers and sisters taught this to their students) that we need carbon dioxide. Plants take it in and convert it to oxygen for us to breathe.

As they say, read it all. She hits Barry where he needs to be hit. His facts are wrong, and only serve as repetitious talking points for the "tingling class" to repeat to the lemmings that drink up the kool-aid. Kudos to Sarah Palin for coming out swinging and not sitting on the sidelines like so many of our elected representatives have decided to do.

Publius II

Let's start out light today ...

For those that missed the all important news yesterday, TOTUS had an accident. Naturally, I was set to put up a post to mourn it's honorable passing. After all, when you're carrying Barry's water, you might have a nervous breakdown, too. Some claimed it was suicide. I heard a rumor that it might have been an assassination. There were a lot of questions -- questions that should have been addressed to Judge Sonia Sotomayor. After all, it was newly-sworn-in Minnesota senator Al Franken who claimed she was, in short, the most qualified judge to be appointed to the US Supreme Court in the last 100 years. What would that important question be?

Does the 25th Amendment apply to teleprompters, or only their master, the president?

But that question needed no answer. TOTUS spoke last night for the first time since the accident:

Remember how I was hoping to take the next couple of days off? Well, that hasn't worked out so well.

My White House designated operator, Felix, clearly has to go. Today, Big Guy and I were scrolling and speaking to an interest group that supported us, and during the middle of the speech, one of my screens collapsed. Turns out Felix didn't tighten one of my screen's bracket rods, and one of my screens collapsed. It was kind of embarrassing, and the accident looked alot worse than the may have seemed on video.

All that said, I think I tweaked something. It may be my ACL, or maybe my MCL, or my "T" joint. Regardless, the Secret Service sent me first to George Washington University Hospital, where there is a special ICU and care facility for senior administration officials. But a good friend of mine, I'll call him Browny for legal reasons, ended up in a coma there after having "minor sinus surgery" if you get my drift, and there was no way in hell, I was going to put up with that.

So off I went to Bethesda Naval, where I figured I'd get looked at and released. But then there were the X-rays, the MRIs, the prodding and poking, the seemingly endless attempts to draw blood where the nurse couldn't find a vein despite my best efforts to explain that I was merely a humble hard-drive. Yet the poking and prodding continued.

Then they discovered that I basically had a limited warranty, and out the door I went. Someone really ought to try to look into this health care thing.

Now we're offended that the folks at Bethesda treated TOTUS the way they did. Sure, he might have had a limited warranty, but for God's sake we own GM and Chrysler. Couldn't they have found some upgraded parts? Back in the 70's we had the technology to save Steven Austin's life. The government made him better, stronger, faster. The least they could have done was try to make him as bionic as possible. I don't know. Maybe they were worried about creating Skynet 1.0 AKA Colossus. After all, Barry wouldn't want something challenging his authority in saving the world, right?

It just seems a damned shame that TOTUS is treated like this. He's worked hard for seven months, trying to cover up for Barry's idiocy and Biden-esque gaffes. This just shows the nation, yet again, that Barry doesn't care about anyone but himself. We hope that TOTUS is recovering comfortably in an old-teleprompter home somewhere.

Publius II