THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
his house and laying up supplies for the winter
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the
cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances
and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference
and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well
fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable
home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp
contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and
everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house
where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome."
Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the
grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King
that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both
call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper
Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of
green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his
home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel
of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of
single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last
bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just
happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he
doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the
house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize
the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

NEWT NO MORE: WHAT McCAIN FEINGLOD DID TO A GINGRICH BID

by Martha Zoller

"I had to make a choice. American Solutions is in the early stages of being a genuine citizens movement. To walk out on it just as it was getting launched was irresponsible. It's far more important than exploring prospects for the presidency." Newt Gingrich, September 29, 2007

What a difference 48 hours makes in politics. On Thursday, at 10:15 am, while appearing on my program on WDUN AM 550 in Gainesville, Georgia, Newt Gingrich gave the answer to the “presidential question” he would give for the rest of that day and Friday and had been giving through out this year. As soon as his world wide event, American Solutions, was over on September 29th he would have Randy Evans, on his behalf, see if there were $30 million dollars in pledges for a presidential campaign. He said that on October 21 he would give a final answer. As late as Thursday evening on The Sean Hannity Show and later on Hannity and Colmes on Fox News Channel, he said that there was a 20% chance he would run.

When I talked to him on my program and later at the conference, he repeated many of the same things. He was looking for “Red, White and Blue” solutions, he was a “middle-class” guy who couldn’t write a $100 million dollar personal check like Gov. Mitt Romney, and that the way to beat Sen. Hillary Clinton was to have ideas not attacks. He sounded like a man who was running and he looked like a man on top of his game.

The ink was hardly dry on the press release to announce his exploratory committee on a run for president, Gingrich had suspended his contract with Fox News Channel earlier in the week and had fielded and answered a number of questions regarding living in Virginia while basing a campaign out of Atlanta. He looked like a candidate. In fact, a number of news organizations ran commentary with titles like, “Newt will Run.” What a difference a few hours make. Gingrich pulled the plug on his own presidential aspirations.

It appears that Newt Gingrich is the first casualty of McCain/Feingold and the squashing of free speech through campaign finance reform. Gingrich said, "McCain-Feingold has legal penalties. It penalizes being a citizen. We thoroughly understood the legalities of running for president. We didn't realize the implications for American Solutions. We just said this is important. We can't have all these workshops and kill it Monday morning."

Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokes person said in an email, “The risk during the exploratory phase would have been being accused of using American Solutions resources to travel, speak, communicate, etc. During this phase, American Solutions would have been open to the factual allegation that while Newt was actually speaking for Solutions, he was instead attempting to drum up support [or pledges]." McCain/Feingold would have made it impossible for Gingrich to continue raising money for American Solutions and explore a run for the Presidency and for a guy who has always had been many things at once, it wasn’t plausible that he could add a presidential run into the mix.

But Gingrich may fight another day. He has ruled out a vice-presidential bid, but hasn’t ruled out a run for president in 2012. I have a moment in time theory about all this. There is a reason that we haven’t had a President Howard Baker or President Sam Nunn -- it’s not because they weren’t talked about or considered or qualified, it’s because they missed their moment in time. While there is some speculation about a Nunn independent run for 2008, it won’t be at the top of the ticket. Is this Gingrich’s moment in time or has it passed? That question can only be answered with time.

His commitment to American Solutions is steadfast and suits him. If he stays with American Solutions and works within the two party system to facilitate change and connections between parties, he may do what presidents and speakers can’t do—bring people together through education. Rush Limbaugh said that the greatest mistake of the Republican Revolution of 1994 is that we thought we had convinced people on conservatism. The current Democrat controlled congress is doing the same thing. They think their win of the House and Senate in 2006 was a vote for them, when actually it was a vote against Republicans who weren’t doing their jobs and were corrupt. Maybe American Solutions is the vehicle for Newt, the teacher, to finally convince the American people about conservatism. It is a way to take the Contract with America of 1994 to a new generation with new ways to spread the message.

Newt Gingrich is a survivor and he is a guy that can get more people together of differing political persuasions than anyone I have every met. He’ll be there for the pendulum to swing back to the right and he will have a say so in where it lands. The sad thing is beginning the weekend with the possibility of a run for president and ending it with the jolt of a definitive, “I am not running,” takes away from what he wanted to accomplish from the weekend. The news became about him and not about the message. However, there will be many more American Solutions weekends and America will be watching.

HILLARY'S INCOME TRANSFER SCHEME

You've heard the latest, haven't you? This one came out last Friday afternoon. Hillary (please sit down) wants for the federal government to "give" every baby born in America a $5,000 account that can start growing and earning interest so that by the time this kid turns 18 they'll have money to go to college.

No .. I'm not kidding. She actually came out with this idea at a speech before a Congressional Black Caucus forum. It's a brand new entitlement program, courtesy of Hillary Clinton.

Just think about it! Download a baby, and presto!, the taxpayers owe your new child a cool five thousand!

This is pure Hillary Clinton. This is a woman who believes that America is government. If government decides that every new baby gets five grand, then that's all there is to it. Every new baby gets five grand.

Where does it come from? Oh, come on now. Ask Hillary and she'll just tell you it comes from the government. If you ask her where the government is going to get the money, she'll prattle on about repealing the Bush tax cuts or some such nonsense. Bottom line? A new entitlement program. Here's your birth certificate, here's $5,000, and welcome to America!

Let me tell you how Hillary's idiotic little income redistribution idea is going to work out in real life --- after, that is, the young single women of this country make her our next president.

First we'll have to figure out whether or not the five grand baby bonus will be paid to a baby born in this country of illegal aliens. Well of course it would! After all, the baby's a citizen, isn't he? We certainly don't want to discriminate. So .. here's a scenario that will become all-too common. Consuelo lives in Tijuana. Consuelo is pregnant .. bulging, wide-eyed pregnant. Sus roturas del agua. Consuelo heads for the border ... eager to get to the emergency room of a U.S. hospital. And why would that be? Why, so her baby can get it's $5,000, that's why? You couldn't figure that out on your own? Must be government educated. Pity.

Another question. Just how will the parents be able to invest the baby's money?

You can be sure there will be restrictions. Maybe this would be a good time to resurrect the Democrat's idea of "economically targeted investments." Maybe the law would say that you could only invest the money in stocks of a company that is deemed to be "union friendly!" Or maybe it could only be invested in savings institutions that show the politically correct inclination to make loans to minorities with bad credit and job histories!

How would the baby bonus play out around election time? Well, that's a simple enough question to answer. The Democrats would have two stock campaign tactics ready for each election: (1) Vote for me and I'll raise the baby bonus to $6000! A sure winner with every pregnant or hoping-to-be pregnant voter out there. (2) Vote for a Republican and they're going to take your baby bonus away!

What happens when spending gets a little tight? This one's simple also. Democrats will suggest that the baby bonus get phased out for people in upper income brackets. In other words, stiff the high achievers. In order to increase the baby bonus for lower and middle income parents, the Democrats will phase it out for the minority who earn the higher incomes. The math is so simple you should be able to figure it out even if you went to a government school. There are more households who make under $200,000 a year in this country than there are those who make more. Cut off the baby bonus for the evil rich, increase it for the poor and middle income types --- and the votes come rolling in.

Remember Hillary shrieking "I want to take those profits" after Exxon Mobile posted a rather hefty profit figure? Sure she wants to take those profits. She already thinks they belong to her anyway! This is a woman who harbors a gut belief that every penny you earn belongs to the federal government. You are to be allowed to keep just enough of what you earn to keep you fat and reasonably complacent. Beyond that, it's hers, and she will throw it around the way she pleases.

Hold tight, my friends. There's sure to be more Hillary absurdities on the way.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, PHONY SOLDIERS, AND THE LEFT'S DESPERATE NEED FOR ITS OWN "BETRAY US" MOMENT

By Michelle Malkin

So, word is that the Democrats will introduce a House resolution Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks about phony soldiers. Brian Maloney points out that ABC News aired a report on phony soldiers and Operation Stolen Valor two days before Rush made his remarks. Asks Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Here is what this phony fiasco is really all about: It’s about the MoveOn.org Democrats trying to save face in the aftermath of the disastrous “General Betray Us” smear. They want their own moment of righteous (or rather, lefteous) indignation, their own empty proof that they really, really, really do support the troops. They want to shift attention away from MoveOn.org, its bully tactics, and its thug brethren at Media Matters. They are making a pathetic attempt to equate the “Betray Us” attack–which was deliberately timed for publication and maximum p.r. damage to our military command when the world was watching our top general in Iraq testifying in Congress–with a radio talk show host’s ruminations about anti-war soldiers who have faked their military records/history.

Bottom-of-the-barrel desperation.

I have written and reported extensively on the Winter Soldier Syndrome phenomenon. It goes far beyond Jesse MacBeth, the faker busted by the blogosphere. As I wrote in August in my column on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp fiasco:

Ever since John Kerry sat in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and accused American soldiers of wantonly razing villages “in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan,” the Left has embraced a small cadre of self-loathing soldiers and soldier wannabes willing to sell their deadened souls for the anti-war cause.

Think Jimmy Massey, the unhinged Marine who falsely accused his unit of engaging in mass genocide against Iraqis.

Think Jesse MacBeth and Micah Wright, anti-war Army Rangers who weren’t Army Rangers.

Think Josh Lansdale, the anti-war Army medic who attacked former GOP Sen. Jim Talent by spinning a bogus health care tale swallowed whole by Dem Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gen. Wesley Clark and the far Left VoteVets.org crew.

Think Amorita Randall, the NYTimes-championed former naval construction worker who told the Times magazine that she served in Iraq, was in a Humvee that blew up, and was raped twice while serving in the Navy–but, in fact, had never served in Iraq.

Winter Soldier Syndrome will only be cured when the costs of slandering the troops outweigh the benefits. Exposing Scott Thomas Beauchamp and his brethren matters because the truth matters. The honor of the military matters. The credibility of the media matters.

Think it doesn’t make a difference? Imagine where Sen. John Kerry would be now if the Internet had been around in 1971.

Instead of confronting the problem, MoveOn.org/MediaMatters Democrats are preparing to shoot the messenger.

The reported sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Rep. Mark Udall. He’s running for Senate in Colorado. Yes, he’s trying to win a Senate seat by running against Rush Limbaugh. The Colorado Index has the text of his proposed resolution:

110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. CON. RES.
Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans.

Whereas on September 26, 2007, the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are ”phony soldiers”; and

Whereas such a description constitutes an unwarranted slur on the integrity and professionalism of members of the Armed Forces who exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and
discipline: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Americans serving in the United States Armed Forces have volunteered for such service and have not been drafted for that purpose.

(2) Those who serve in the Armed Forces deserve the respect of all Americans for their willingness to undertake that service.

(3) Those who serve in the Armed Forces do not relinquish their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline.

(4) The dedication and honor of Americans serving in the Armed Forces should not be impugned because of their exercise of such right.

SEC. 2. Congress –

(1) recognizes the service of all members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing and with honor to defend the United States, and the personal sacrifices made by them and their families;

(2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions of members of the Armed Forces regarding the policies of the United States, including those related to military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces who have expressed opinions regarding military actions in Iraq;

(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm’s way, as well as their families; and

(5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding request or any policy decisions regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve

Like the “Betray Us” ad, this, too, will ultimately backfire.

As my post yesterday about MoveOn.org’s attempt to squelch criticism by t-shirt and bumper sticker sellers at Cafe Press underscored, the unhinged Left is beginning to alienate its own base with its any-means-necessary tactics.

You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times…

***

Glenn Reynolds spells it out: “…the intent is to limit the ability of people like Limbaugh or O’Reilly to drive stories in the mainstream news as we get closer to the election. Expect more of this, with more targets.”

Yes. In other words: A backdoor restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

***

You asked for it: Rep. Mark Udall’s contact info…

Rep. Mark Udall
100 Cannon House
Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2161
Fax: (202) 226-7840

HILLIARYCARE REVEALED

Hillary Rodham, almost certain to be the nominee of the Democrat MoveOn Party, finally unveiled her government-run healthcare planyesterday. For comic relief Ms. Rodham told the assembled crowd that this health care plan would not be "government run." It's pretty much what everyone anticipated.

In essence ... everyone will be required to purchase a health insurance policy, either on their own or through their employer. And just who is going to require the purchase of these policies? Your local sheriff? Well, not exactly. The Imperial Federal Government will do the requiring here, and, one must assume, the enforcing.

Now here's a question that you won't probably hear many people asking, and that's sad. Just where in our Constitution does the federal government acquire the right – the power – to force free citizens to purchase anything, let alone a health insurance policy.

The Constitution is clear on this point, the federal government can only take actions that are specifically authorized by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved for the states or the people. Nowhere in that document do you see anything that can in be interpreted to allow the feds to tell you what you must purchase.

In her little talk yesterday Hillary drew a comparison to auto insurance. She said that states require people to purchase auto insurance before they can drive. This should come as no surprise, but she's wrong. The only time you can be required to purchase automobile insurance by a state government is IF you wish to drive an automobile on a state or government owned highway. You can own a car and drive it around your private property to your heart's content without buying insurance, or without wearing a seatbelt of having operating headlights, for that matter. Hillary's comparison is absurd, but I suppose it's the best she can do.

How will Hillary's government enforce this requirement? Is everyone required to file a report with the government detailing their health insurance company and policy number? Just how high will the costs of compliance here be? And what happens if you fail to buy a policy. Are you jailed? Does the government withhold your tax refund to purchase a policy for you? What if you don't have a tax refund coming? If you just absolutely refuse to buy a health insurance policy, will the government get some sort of a judgment against you and seize enough of your property to pay for the policy?

More questions: What will the policies entail? If you're not a drug addict are you still going to have to pay for drug rehab coverage? What if you have no plans to get pregnant? Are you still going to have to pay for maternity benefits? Let me tell you how this is going to work. Once the government mandates that every person must, under penalty of God knows what, buy a health insurance policy, you're going to have every medical special interest group out there demanding that the government require that those policies provide payments for their pet medical procedures. Ophthalmologists will demand coverage for eye correction surgery. Psychiatrists will demand coverage for psychological issues. Oncologists will demand coverage for experimental cancer procedures that have not as yet been proven effective. These people will be lining up .. and they'll be throwing the campaign donations around like confetti ... and the politicians will give them exactly what they want.

Oh .. and the MoveOn Democrats just love to yammer endlessly about the uninsured. The truth about the uninsured? Most are only uninsured for a period of less than a year. Many simply have made a choice not to buy health insurance. Some have so much wealth that they essentially self-insure. The truth is far from the scenario they paint.

Oh .. and wouldn't you know it? Hillary's plan includes increasing taxes. She doesn't call it a tax increase .. .she used the MoveOn approved code phrase of "repealing the Bush tax cuts."

Remember. This is not about making you more healthy. This is not about improving the delivery of health care services in this country. This is ONLY about increasing the power of government and politicians.

ILLEGAL ALIENS AREN'T CRIMINALS?

Criminal: adj. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. American Heritage Dictionary.

OK ... do you now have the definition of a criminal in mind? If you've committed a crime, you are a criminal. If you've been convicted of a crime, you are a criminal. I realize that this is a tough concept for some liberals to grasp ... but even with my government school education, I think I get it.

Now, may I draw your attention to this editorial that appeared on July 24th in the Indianapolis Star? The title of the editorial is "Illegal doesn't make them criminals." Well now! If ever there was a headline or a title to a column or editorial that better exemplifies the mindset of the leftist media in this country, this would be it.

This editorial is full of so much unadulterated bullcrap, I hardly know where to start.

First, of course, the editors of the Indianapolis Star just can't bring themselves to say the words "illegal aliens," even though that is the official government label applied to people who enter this country illegally. For the most part the Star just refers to them as "immigrants". Instead of attaching the "illegal" word to these criminals, the Star editors refer to them as "young male immigrants ... who arrived in this country without proper documentation."

Gawd .. this political correctness is just infuriating!

These are not "young male immigrants who arrived in this country without proper documentation," they are criminals who crossed our borders illegally, who obtained jobs here illegally (often with forged documents), and who remain here illegally. The Star editors try to portray them as poor, hapless, unfortunate Mexicans who crossed the border into this country in the dark of night and then were m to suddenly discover that, ay caramba, they didn't have the proper documentacion!

In one part of this editorial the reader is told that there is no reason to believe that these "young male immigrants" are any more likely than anyone else to commit a crime. Then, a few paragraphs later, we're told that the crime rate in Indianapolis has risen as the immigrant population has grown. OK guys .. which is it?

The paper then goes on to blame the problem of illegal immigration not on those who actually commit the crimes, but instead on our own government? And just why would that be? Why, because we're not letting them in legally! That means they just have to break the law to get here!

Oh .. now I understand.