You needn't be a Michael Moore Lunatic to believe the Democratic House WANTS the economy to collapse.  The worse the economic situation, the the better off the democrats think they will be in November.  So what that it is the Democratic policies that got us here in the first place.  So what if it was a democratic bailout bill that was torpedoed by a democratic Speaker of the House because she could not/would not get 13 extra votes out of the 95 democrats that voted "no".  It's Bush's mess, they say.  So what if the economy was purring like a kitten for 6 years of Bush policies.  So what if we had sustainable slow growth until the "Let's give everyone a mortgage" chickens and the "Don't drill here, not now, not ever" chickens came home to roost.  So what if the bad news started when the Democrats took over.  It's gotta be Bush's fault.

Don't vote for any congressional democrat.  Work to defeat every congressional democrat.  Tell them that their election trickery doesn't work.  Show them that the American people aren't as gullible as they think were are.  Teach them never to promote their party at the expense of the American People ever again! Defeat the Dems!

Reading Michael Moore's rant referenced above, you might notice Mickey is still pouting over the "selected" president.  That the US Supreme Court forced Florida to follow its own election laws doesn't seem to ring a tone of fairness to Mickey's people.  No wonder they were still working out the rules of their primaries when they were almost concluded.

He does make an interesting point.  He says the number one cause of bankruptcies is medical bills.  Interesting.  Not that it has anything to do with foreclosures, which is what this is all about, but interesting nonetheless.  Now, of course, sometimes you will have both.  One might lead to the other.  But having medical bills being the number one cause of bankruptcies does not make it the number one cause of foreclosures.  If he could prove that one, then he would have something.  Otherwise, why all of these foreclosures all at once.  Why not four years ago?  Five years ago? Three years ago?  Why were all of these people getting so many medical bills all at the same time?  They weren't of course.  The problem with the housing bubble is not that people got sick all at the same time.  That doesn't make sense.  Although this all did begin about the time that Michael Moore's Sicko came out . . .  (maybe people got sick from watching it.  Nah.  No one watched it.)  The problem that caused the bubble was rising interest rates.  And all of those adjustable mortgages . . . . Adjusted.  Up.  All at once.  So all of these people who so creatively got into their new house with creative financing found that they hadn't been creative enough to conceive that their interest rates would adjust upward, increasing their monthly payments to a level they could not afford.  Their mortgage payments.  Not the doctor bills.

Here is another question.  What kind of person lays out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars as downpayment for a mortgage, promises to pay thousands of dollars a month for their mortgage, and, yet, doesn't spend $500 a month or so for medical insurance?  Why does he believe that the only way people can get health insurance is through the government?  If you can afford a house and you don't buy health insurance . . .  I would finish that sentence, but the rules of Townhall prohibit me from expressing my thought in writing.  And, yet, that is what Michael Moore wants you to believe.  That all of these thousands or millions of people bought a house but didn't buy health insurance.

Don't believe Mickey.  His success lies in, well, lying.  Lying well.  Include just enough truth to make it believable.  There are enough liberals out there that will believe it.

So watch for The American Carol when it comes out.  It will be fun seeing Michael get a taste of his medicine.  And he won't have to go to Cuba to get it.

Even if Michael Moore and the Pelosi Democrats have their way, you may still have enough money in your 401K or 403B to be able to buy a ticket.

Pelosi seems not to mind taking the heat for stonewalling any energy bills in congress.  And why not?  She feels very secure in her bluest of blue California congressional districts.  This shows one big problem in California's districting procedures.

We need to support any and all efforts to change the districting procedures so that no congressperson feels that secure.  The whole idea is that we would always be able to Throw the Rascal Out.

We can only hope that while taking the heat, the American people blame all congressional Democrats.  If we can throw out enough of the Democrats.

We need to be reminded of an incident soon after the 2006 elections.  Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was chairing a hearing where Al Gore was testifying.  She was giving him extra time to present his views--at the expense of the Republican senator whose turn it was to ask questions.  Boxer responded, "Elections have consequences."

"Elections have consequences." This is a lesson we need to learn.  Every time someone talks about punishing the republicans and hoping they'll learn their lessons needs to know "elections have consequences."  Every time a conservative talks about voting anyone other than the republican they need to know "elections have consequences."

"Elections have consequences."  A lesson we need to teach the democrats.  The hard way.

Readers of my previous post may wonder if I hold Clinton responsible for 9-11.  Let me clarify.

I do believe that his actions and his inaction directly led to 9-11.   The structural faults in our intelligence machines, the treatment of terror attacks as criminal matters rather than something more serious, the ineffective responses to acts of war against us, the cutting down of the military all added to or allowed the Jihadists view that we were a paper tiger and that we would not prevent them from attacking us and, if attacked, we would not respond effectively.  Fortunately, Bill Clinton was not in office when the attacks actually occured.

Having said that, there is no way that Clinton could have known definitively what the consequences of his actions would be.  There may have been people around warning him, but there are enough conspiracy people around that it is difficult enough to hear the soothsayers among the cacophony of cooks.  We may question the wisdom of his actions, we may say that it was not hard to foresee the consequences, but there was no way someone with his world view could see what was coming.

So I do not blame him.  He may have been negligent, if you will, but not criminally so.

Then we come to today, or rather, pitifully soon after 9-11.  First, the complaint was that the administration was incompetent for not connecting the dots and preventing the attacks (of course, this doesn't include the loonatic fringe that believe the administration orchestrated the attacks).  It wasn't long after that people were complaining about airport security, about the Patriot Act, about "domestic eavesdropping."  You have to wonder if, after having seen what Jihadists are capable of, how people can critique the then administration for not connecting the dots and preventing the attack.  One could argue that if we did not know what might happen,  the measures that we were an unnecessary and inconvenient infringement of our freedom.  But having seen what Jihadists are capable of doing, how can people strain under the yoke of what has been determined to be necessary to prevent the next attack?

So when Pelosi and her accomplices allow the FISA to expire, they will be responsible, criminally negligent, for any attacks that occur because we didn't have our ear to the ground.  When Obama Billary bring our soldiers home, followed on their heels by the Jihadists, they will be responsible and criminally negligent.

And what does that say about the people who elected them?  Particularly the conservatives who decide to protest by not voting for the only candidate who might keep us safe?  The people who recognize the dangers and vote (or don't vote) in a way that endangers our safety?