If I were a senator on the floor, here is what I would say

If I were a senator debating the health care bill on the floor, here is what I would say prior to the vote:

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I weep and lament that this sorry excuse of legislation will be passed, then reconciled with the House and then sent to the President for signature and thus became the law of the land. I weep and lament that we as United States Senators are both scrapping our oaths as defenders of the Constitution as well as being so arrogant as to willfully ignore the demands of the people whom we represent that this legislation, this bill is not in the interests of our country. I weep and lament that rather than be home worshipping the Incarnate Son of God, incarnate for us and for our salvation (and I do not expect anyone else to subscribe to my belief of Nativity) I am kept here to do what the majority leader has routinely called the "people's business." This is not the people's business since the people do not want it. The Democrats, whose very name implies that the power of the people dictate their votes, are abnegating the people's wishes for the mere sake of handing our president a victory, just because he needs one. Make no mistake, we are not here to debate health care. This debate has never been about health care. This legislation exists to punish the innovators and wealthy of our society, to nationalize 1/6 of the economy and GDP, to expand the welfare state and thus make the people dependent on the government rather than trusting the people to make decisions they feel are in their best interests using the money and talents they have been given or earned, and to give our narcissistic and egocentric president a boost because everything else this man has proposed and signed into law has been an abysmal failure.

Since facts are not of any interest to the Democrats and since this is not about health care, the reminder of several important facts is perhaps an exercise in futility but I shall read it for the record so that posterity may judge fairly. The proponents of this legislation claim that there are some 47 million uninsured who cannot get it in this country and thus this will help them to get that insurance. Such a figure has been debunked continuously. There may be 47 million who don't have insurance in this country according to a 2006 report from the Census Bureau. But if we break down those numbers we see that 9.5 million are not even United States Citizens, i.e. they are illegal immigrants, people who have gotten into this country, probably for noble reasons, but are still guilty of breaking the laws of this land which this Congress and the President are reluctant to enforce. More on that at another time. Another 17 million without insurance are people or families who make in excess of $50,000 a year and thus can afford health insurance but choose not to because they feel that their money can be best spent elsewhere. Another 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 34 whose health was robust and who determined, whether wisely or not, that their money could be spent for other things such as completing a college education, paying off student loans, buying their first car, etc. Of the elderly who were uninsured, only 30% were uninsured for more than 12 months and 50% regained their insurance within 4 months. Thus the 47 million uninsured is a number twisted for political points.

We are repeatedly told by the majority leader and the President that 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day. If that number were true (and I don't believe it is), let us examine the reason for it. These are the people who have lost their job who had health insurance as part of their compensation. The reason that they lack health insurance now is because these are people who are being laid off because of the sorry state of the economy. As much as our president cannot fathom that his policies have only dug us deeper into the worse recession since what Jimmy Carter left us (and whose playbook he is using to supposedly "rescue" us from this deback), the increased taxes and penalties levied on people in this bill which start immediately as opposed to the so-called "benefits" which will not be implemented for four years down the line will only exacerbate the economic perils that many Americans find themselves in. Make no mistake that I believe that the President's and Democrat's handling of this economy is deliberate and is being done in concert with the passage of this health care bill for precisely one purpose: to make government more intrusive into our daily lives. Health care decisions, we are told by the President, are personal decisions. Then why not leave them up to the people themsleves rather than telling them what they ought to do?

We are also lectured that 50% of all bankruptices in this country are due to families or individuals who are paying for health care to save them or beloved family members from life threatening illnesses. First, the vast majority of those who do go bankrupt do so not because they were denied coverage but because they were a substantial part of that 35 million who could afford insurance and did not wish to purchase it or because they were young and healthy and a catastrophe happened which they did not foresee. The percentage of bankruptcies from health care costs is closer
to 9% not half.

The proponents of this bill will not even touch or even discuss measures that will actually allow for more people to be insured AND save them money. Two immediately come to mind. The first is tort reform. Lawyers are making billions, I repeat, billions of dollars off of class action lawsuits against doctors and hospitals and insurance companies for malpractice. Indeed, malpractice does occur, but the sums sought to remedy injuries or death are beyond what is commodious, it goes on to the exorbitant and extravagant. Doctors are so afraid of being sued in this increasing litigious society of ours that they order tests which may not be even necessary for diagnosis of the displayed symptoms, but do so anyway just to "cover their bases" to avoid any possiblity that there was malfeisance on his part. Those unnecessary tests are then passed over to the consumer in general. But we have not heard a word of tort reform. In fact, former DNC chairman, Howard Dean, himself an internist said at a health care town-hall over this past summer that the bill wouldn't pass with tort reform because no lawyer would support such provisions. So, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospitals are demonized but where is the outrage leveled at lawyers from the proponents of this bill? It is not to be found. The proponents, particularly President Obama have even demonized the doctors themselves saying that they amputate legs and remove tonsils just for extra reimbursement, when such a thing never happens! But where is the demonization of lawyers who won't sacrifice? It is not to be found. President Obama said that we all had to sacrifice in this trying time. I guess lawyers are to be exempt from sacrifice. Such is the hyocrisy of the President and members of this Congress--Sacrifice for thee, but not for me.

Another reform that would generate savings for the American people is lifting the ban to buy insurance across state lines. Why is it that there is a law in place which prohibits a person living in Kansas from purchasing insurance for himself or for his family from a company that operates in California? Repeatedly, we have heard rhetoric in this body about how insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are monopolies. If insurance companies are monopolies, it has occurred because of government fiat, in other words we have made them monopolies. Competition which has always, always, brought down prices regardless of whether you are selling TVs or snow shovels, is not being allowed to happen. Why? Because the state knows better.

The proponents of this bill are not liberals. A liberal person is someone like myself who believes in freedom, not as some abstract thought for discussion in philosophical fashion, but believes in it as a reality, as something that can be exercised and used at a person's own discretion. Where is the faith that we have in the common man to make his own mistakes and create his own success? Yes, many people are foolish and do stupid things. But such is the price of freedom. It is obviously lost on the proponents since they are not liberals. They are Statists, people who glorify the state and see it as the means of salvation. They care not for the common man. They believe in equality but the difference between the Statist and the liberal when it comes to equality is that the former impose equality by restrictions whereas the latter promotes that equality is a natural right to live freely under self-government. It is not perfection since human beings are not perfect. The Statist proponents believe fervently that they know what is better for people because of their intentions. Such was the belief of the Bolsheviks, the Nazis and the Maoists. In Communist Russia, we see that the belief in equality was only a belief as the majority of citizens had barely enough to eat while those who imposed that "equality" on them were free to shop at special stores which were stocked with food while the ordinary citizen was forced to wait in lines for days often just for the basic necessities.

Thus, let us return to the Constitution. Where, I pray, tell me, where in the Constitution do you see anything remotely where the government can tell an individual what he must acquire for himself? It is not there. The frequent retort of the Statist is to bring up auto insurance as a comparison. Such a comparison is dishonest, disingenous and specious. Auto insurance is purchased primarily for the damage you may inflict on someone else while driving. Though it may have some personal perks attached to it (like towing, rental cars, etc.), the need for auto insurance is to protect a person you may potentially harm. Also, the need for federal backround checks or the purchase of permits to buy firearms is also a specious comparison because the firearm could be potentially used against someone else. There is nothing in the Constituion, not even the oft-cited "commerce clause" to warrant such a dangerous meddling of government into the private affairs of citizens. Nothing.

The Statist has been demeaning, excoriating and demolishing the U.S. Constitution piecemeal since the start of the 20th century. We have all seen the results. Government is in record debts, in the trillions, due to the expansion of the welfare state, done in the name of charity, in such programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Great Society, welfare, all of which have spent more than what was forecasted because the Statist uses these as means to increase his own power and influence. Today, the recession is still with us because of a lack of incentive and innovation, two things which are absolutely necessary to bring a country out of recession, are nonexistent. The Statist must take credit for these and be responsible for the development of creativity since for an individual to take credit is anathema to him.

The Statists will say that even conservatives in Europe support the socialized medicine that is present over there. Only because of the fact that once the nanny state is in place, it is difficult if not impossible to remove it. I can only believe that such is the reason for the haste that surrounds this bill. This is about imposing a nanny state, because the Statists fear the individual, they fear self-reliance because their success is not dependent and exists in spite of governmental interference. So, let us oppose this now and forever for once it is set in stone, there is no going back.

I must single out a few people before I close. Senator Nelson, you are nothing more than an expensive man whore. At the last minute you announced that you would support the bill for benefits to Nebraska such as the completing of a hospital and assurance that Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, home of the Strategic Air Command and employer of 10,000 Nebraskans would not be on the short list of closings beginning in 2013. You sold your vote, but I think you held out only for fame. You know that supporting this bill would cost you your senate seat in 2012, but you didn't care because you were probably promised some board of directors job where you could amass more private fortune. Senator Landrieu, you are also an expensive call girl, selling out Louisiana for a few million dollars to rebuild damage done from Katrina. What does that have to do with health care?

Again, we are not debating health care here. If we were, then we would be talking about insurance reform and tort reform. Instead, this health care bill is nothing more than a backdoor method for the Statist to take over private decisions for his own self. The people do not want this, but they are dismissed because they don't know what is good for them. I notice that none of the proponents are or have been doctors or worked in the health care industry. There are many doctors and health care professionals opposed to this bill and yet their criticism is summarily dismissed by a bunch of glorified lawyers, lobbyists and social studies majors who now have the title of Senator.

I lament that I am spending this time here instead of home with my family worshipping at the Nativity Vigil, my Lord and God who came in the flesh to save us from the corruption brought to us by our sin. Unlike the proponents, I am actually here on the people's business. The people want this bill destroyed and so I will do nothing but vote no and I will show no quarter and will not lack vituperation to those of you who vote for it. This is not about health care reform. It is about the control of the individual by the state and to give President Obama a victory because he has done nothing well. I yield back the rest of this time.

Zweifalten (from my Germany trip in 2008)

Many people keep pressing me to get back to my journal about my trip to Germany in July of 2008. And I know that I should. Everything that I saw and took in should be written down, if only for my own edification.

Going through my pictures of the trip, I decided to put together a little film that I made on Microsoft Movie Maker of my pictures of the Church at Zweifalten. Zweifalten is a city that is located south of Mehrstetten along the Loter river. It has a magnificent church which is attached to a cloister that makes a great beer. If you want to try and get it, it's called Zweifalter Kloisterbraue. I thought it was the best beer I had ever tasted and I'm not much of a beer drinker, mind you.

I'm not going to get into much of the history of my excursion to this beautiful little city and its church (I'll do that later, I promise), but I thought I would share with you some of the pictures I took. It also has some good German music, Heinrich Schuetz' "Der Herr sprach zu meinem Herren" to accompany your visual tour. So enjoy.

Is it any wonder that no one trusts the media anymore?

Consider the headline: Unexpected drop in jobless rate sparks optimism. This is the headline on Yahoo! Finance. This is just more proof that the media simply doesn't get it and is again participating in the 24-7 fluffing session for Obama.

Two things immediately come to mind when reading this. First, even doing a simple google search, you will find this same basic headline for the past year all talking about how fewer people filing for jobless benefits seems to indicate that the recession is turning around. And then, the next week, the figures go back up. The media has been saying this since unemployment was 7% and look where we are now: over 10%! It may be down from 10.2%, but that's hardly worth getting into a sexual frenzy over!

Second, jobless claims are going to go down because of the fact that more people are employed at this time of year, but only temporarily and/or for part-time. Why? Because it's the Christmas season and a number of businesses, mainly retailers and also companies involved with delivery, like UPS and Fed-Ex, need to keep up with the increased demand, diminished as it is this year.

The media is so in bed with Obama they may as well make an X-rated movie out of it and try to sell it, although I think they would be the only ones buying. The fact that the media tries to push this every time and expect the American public to buy into it, hook-line-sinker, really only proves and exascerbates just how out of touch and blatantly partisan the media is.

Words do mean things

As a teacher of langauges, I am very concerned about how language is used. I, of course, prefer that language be used within the standards and correctly. At the same time, I realize that langauge is fluid and does, in fact, change. Vocabulary is added to through neologisms, of which some 200 are "unofficially" created each day, and also can undergo a process known as semantic shift. Let me provide a few examples.

Semantic shift can occur in a variety ways. One way is called pejoration where a word with a neutral or positive meaning becomes associated with a negative sense. The opposite of this process, amelioration, is when a word acquires a positive meaning when originally that word was negative. I'll provide two illustrations.

For pejoration, consider the word fair. Originally, this word connoted beauty and/or respectability. Ever heard "My fair lady?" But today, the word fair is used to express mediocrity or something that is middle of the road. For instance, if a kid brought home a report card with a lot of Cs on it, the parent might say that it was a "fair" report card, meaning "OK." Fair is also used to indicate impartiality. As far as amelioration, consider what has happened to the derogatory term, "bitch", for women. It has now become a positive term, in some circles.

What is the point of this? Genuine semantic shift in langauge happens organically; it's not just something that occurs. Groups may come together and develop their own "Secret language" but that has no bearing on the rest of the world. Remember when President Clinton in his deposition before the Grand Jury went to great lengths to change the meaning of the word "is." I've always taught my students that the linking verb "to be" should be regarded as an equal sign (=). Bill Clinton thought otherwise.

Well, this past week, a hacker got into files at the University of East Anglia (UEA) which has a research facility devoted exclusively to studying the phenomenon of global warning. UEA has also been at the front lines to provide the scientific evidence of global warning which would then be used to justify various types of legislation to stop the culmination of greenhouse gasses which, supposedly, warm the earth in an unnatural way because man is the cause. The emails and other information downloaded by the hacker were then spread throughout the world. One of the emails between a professor at UEA and another at the University of Pennsylvania had this interesting tidbit:

Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Now, if anyone were to read this, one would see the word "trick" and come to the conclusion that there is deceit at work, that there is some malfeasance going on with the reporting of certain climate data. And that is a resaonable conclusion.

However, Mr. Mann says to the New York Times that the word trick means something in scientific circles. He says:

scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.'

Again, semantic shift must happen organically and over time. Now, he does not say that such a definition is being used by society at large (I've never heard trick being used in a positive sense in regular conversation) but that this is a jargon that is located exclusively in the scientific community. I'm very curious to see how widespread the term "trick" is used in this exact manner amongst members of the scientific community. But, I'm willing to bet that it is not used this way at all.

The hoax that is globabl warming has been dealt a very serious blow and now the only way that the defenders of this hoax can continue to justify it is based solely on changing the definition of words. Unfortunately, many of the same people who are teaching this hoax that is global warming are also the same type of people who are teaching languages to our kids. Soon, no one will mean what they say. That's chaos.

One thing (among many) that concerns me about health legislation

The Senate today unveiled its version of legisilation for health care reform. Reid, the Majority Leader from Nevada, wants a vote by this Saturday which will not pass the bill, but allow for weeks of debate, amendments and then final passage. He may have problems getting even that, but we'll wait and see. There are indeed way too many controversial things in this bill, but one thing that I've yet to hear anyone talk about is for those who cannot get coverage.

Now, hear me out on this one. There is a public option in this bill but you will still have to pay into it like you would a premium through any private insurer. Now, if you cannot pay that, a government subsidy will be given to you which can cover a lot of the expense, but not all of it. The cost of not having insurance, whether private or through the public option, can result in fines or, assuming you do not have the funds to pay, jail time which can go up to five years. My question: what will happen to the homeless?

In this country, there are approximately 100,000 homeless families according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness not including veterans, abandoned chilren and other individuals. According to the HUD report for 2008 on homelessness, some 600,000 people were recorded as staying in homeless shelters. So, let's call the number at 1,000,000 people who are homeless right now. I'm sure it's probably even more with the number of people who have been adversely affected by the Obama wrecking of the economy.

These people have pretty much next to nothing. They don't have any assets. Is the government then going to provide them totally free health coverage at no expense? The homeless have medical needs just like the regular population and are more at risk due to lack of shelter, lack of nutrition, lack of adequate clothing, etc. Many of them, when they acquire money of any kind, buy drugs to feed a recurring habit. So, what's going to happen to these homeless?

If they cannot afford premiums for private insurance and even if they are given a subsidy from a public option which will not cover the entire expense, what's going to happen? They can't be fined since they have no money. So, are we going to put all of these homeless in our already overcrowded jails? Are we going to imprison the poor?

I can't believe that this question has not been asked especially by the Democrats who continually believe themselves to be champtions and the guardians of the homeless in this country. Is this a first step towards criminalizing poverty?

My questioning reminds me of an episode of Star Trek I saw. (Yes, I'm a Star Trek nerd). In season 3 of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, there was an episode where Commander Sisko and Dr. Bashir, in a transporter accident (yeah, I know, it's an old plot line) end up in mid-21st century America where things are very different. It's a depressed time economically and those who are unemployed are taken to "sanctuary districts" where they can be out of the way of people who work and our relatively successful. Dr. Bashir and Captain Sisko find themselves in one of these sanctuaries as they have no identification nor any money. I won't give away more of the episode, but the people that are put in there are not criminals, they are people just down on their luck. I know homelessness is not just about being "down on your luck."

Science fiction has always been a great medium to draw attention to the ills we as a society face. Star Trek has done this repeatedly since its inception as it was broadcast during the Vietnam War, Red Scare, Civil Rights movement, etc. I wonder if that particular episode of Deep Space 9 will turn out to be prophetic. I surely hope not.

Zack Greinke wins the Cy Young Award

Congratulations to Zack Greinke upon winning the Cy Young Award. One of the most coveted awards and most esteemed in baseball or in any sport, this gives some hope to those of us who are still, although reluctantly, Royals Fans.

It's not easy being a Royals fan. It really isn't.

When I moved to the Kanas City area back in 1985, Kansas City had just won the AL Central and was on its way to defeating St. Louis in a very dramatic seven game World Series, dubbed the I-70 series. This was uplifting for me since I came from Chicago and neither the Cubs nor the White Sox had been able to do much in terms of contending for the penant, although the Cubs had a promising run in 1984 only to fail, which is par for the course. Since 1985, Kanas City fans haven't had much to cheer for. Sure, we still had George Brett, Bret Saberhagen, Mark Gubicza, Dan Quisenberry, Kevin Seitzer, Frank White, etc. But with the demise of Royals' owner and all-around-good-guy Ewing Kauffman in the early 90s which left the financial future of the Royals in serious doubt, even though it was managed through the Kauffman Foundation and only one playoff appearance since 1985, which was 1992, the fans have really been let down. A new owner game in the form of David Glass who really is more concerned with lining his pockets (nothing wrong with that per se) but not caring a lick about baseball only prolonged the agony. Incompetent managers, more incompetent general managers (I think Allard Baird is a greeter at a local Wal-Mart now), players and perspective players never seemed to develop and went to teams where they blossomed, bad picks in the draft, huge gaffs in free agent signing, which persist to this day (Guillen, hello?) are all good reasons why Royals fans have been in misery for a long time. A lone bright spot did occur back in 2003 when the Royals started playing great, but petered out at the end of the season, going .500 (which was better than many previous years) and the Royals missed the playoffs yet again.

But this year, Royals fans flocked to Kauffman Stadium (I'm sorry, but I cannot call it "The K." It's a stupid moniker for this beautiful stadium. Yes, Kauffman is a beautiful place to play a game. The fountains in the outfield make it worth the trip) to see this young pitcher. At the beginning of the year, Greinke was touted as the Royals premier franchise player. He had a huge and lucrative contract and a larger fan base He became the face of the Kansas City Royals.

And why shouldn't he have been? After 6 starts, this Greinke had an ERA of less than 0.5. That's only been done by three other pitchers, including LA Dodgers Fernando Venezuela back in the 1980s. His end of season record was 16-8 with a 2.16 ERA and 242 strike outs. Now you might balk at the wins, but in half of those games, he was let down by the Royals lack of offense. In those games, Greinke gave up maybe only one run with other runs generated by errors from pretty bad fielding (Callaspo, you reading this?). Nevertheless, Kansas City has a real ace in this guy and the Cy Young puts Greinke in very elite company. David Cone won the Cy Young for the Royals back in 1994 and before him, Bret Saberhagen in 1989. Saberhagen retired as a Royal. We all know what happened to David Cone. That's right--he became a Yankee! I can't think of anything more treacherous. That's why Johnny Damon better watch his back the next time he comes back to Kanas City. He has a huge target on his back, head, wherever.

The challenge is now to keep Greinke. We don't want to lose him to any other team, especially the Yankees. He's a bright spot for Kansas City. In the past, when the Royals were doing lousy, we always had the Chiefs to brighten our fall and winter months. We don't have that anymore either since the Chiefs are the equivalent to a high school football team and are so disappointing right now. I hope that the new management in the Royals front office does everything possible to keep Greinke here and give him the support he needes. There's no way we're going to be able to support a lineup that has as many dollar signs as the Yankees, but the Royals could be sure to keep some good players and recruit new ones so that Greinke isn't recording losses when he gave up only one earned run! However, the Royals General Manager has already done some stupid things. They've kept Guillen, they traded Teahen (who was a good hitter) and released Olivia, they should have let go of C John Buck, but for some idiotic reason, kept him. I don't have much faith in the general managers of either Kansas City professional team right now. But the Royals have some good pitching. Soria is an excellent closer and Meache has his bright spots. Royals just need some offense. And Greinke wants to win. According to the Kansas City star,

Greinke has made it clear that he enjoys Kansas City, but also that winning is his priority. He won fans locally when he told the New York media he wanted to pitch for the Royals, and not the Yankees, but has been open about his disappointment in last year’s 97-loss team.

Like all stars, Greinke wants to win and I'm not sure how willing or shrewd Royals GM, Dayton Moore, will be to arrange for this to happen.

For now, I'm going to congratulate Greinke and hope that this might be the beginning of light in a long, dark tunnel.

Now he cares about the deficit?

President Obama is now concerned over deficits in the federal budget? Really? After we have seen, in 11 short months, an expansive government which has spent money on wasted projects such as the $787 billion stimulus, purchased controlling stock in both GM and Chrysler as well as any number of other insurance and banking industries, printed more money than ever before to come up with the cash to pay for this, thus monetizing our debt, extended unemployment benefits (because it is causing the surge in unemployment to 10.2%), subsidized car buyers with "cash for clunkers" which cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold, devalued the dollar and is pushing for legislation to increase taxes on everything under the sunwhich will not only cause tax wells to run dry and thus hurt government revenue, President Obama now pretends to care about deficits? How is that? In short, Obama has spent more money on new programs in 11 short months than Clinton ever did in eight years! And now, he claims he's a deficit hawk?!

Whatever side of the political spectrum you come from, can you really trust anything this guy says? His actions always repudiate his words. During the campaign, he made himself a centrist, but has governed from the left. But he has now alienated a good part of his leftist basin. He has failed to move on gay rights, frequently reiterating that he believes marriage is a state between one man and one woman and has not yet repealed "Don't ask, don't tell." He has alienated his anti-war leftist buddies with his yet unannounced, but expected, commitment of more troops to the Afghan theatre and has yet to close down GITMO, though his Attorney General, Eric Holder, did announce that those at GITMO would be tried in civilian courts in New York. Notice how he's letting Holder fall on the sword for what will be perceived, by the majority of Americans, as a very ill-considered move. Still, Obama doesn't seem to know what he's doing. He frequently champions the flavor of the week cause and when he sees his poll numbers consistently fall, he reverses course and tries something else. Trying something else doesn't really seem to help him.

But what are we to make out of his sudden caring for the deficit? Could it be that he is now in Asia about to go to China? Very possible. Remember how a few months ago, the US Treasury put up for sale its debt, hoping that China would buy up a lot of it? Well, it turns out that the Chinese didn't go for it and passed. Why? Because the Chinese could see that the dollar was steadily losing value and that all the spending our government was doing with various social plans under our imperious leader were not going to work. Even the communists realized that Obama's plans were not going to work. It's pretty bad when the communists actually make better economic sense than the so-called "leader of the free world." A few months back, Secretary of Treasury "Tiny" Tim Geithner was laughed at by the Chi-coms because they thought his pitch of being fiscally responsible was so disingenous that it was a joke! So, now, to make nice and to convince the Chinese that the dollar is stabilized so that they will buy our debt, Obama's cause of the week is...becoming a fiscal conservative. He's now coming out to support stabilization of the dollar and to combat growing deficits which his administration has caused so that the Chinese will buy American debt again. God forbid, we should actually strengthen our dollar with robust economic growth outside of government spending.

I'm sure this will peter out in about two weeks so he can focus on health care again which, if passed, will (Gasp!) destabilize the dollar and the economy even more. I'm sure the Chi-coms will appreciate that.

When will people wake up to see how economically ignorant this man is? Here's hoping.