Chris Christie: President Obama's Just a 'Bystander'

Chris Christie: President Obama's just a 'bystander'

Gov. Chris Christie on Monday tore into President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the supercommittee’s failure to reach an agreement on debt reduction last week, asking the president, “What the hell are we paying you for?”

Calling Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office,” the outspoken New Jersey governor said the White House spent the weekend tossing out a whole lot of “spin” about the supercommittee’s inability to come to an agreement before the Nov. 23 deadline.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

In a related story, President Obama managed to take another two strokes off his golf score.



H/T Mememorandum

Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?

If you don't mind a bit of redundancy to make a point, here's a nice little video I saw over at I Own the World. Particularly good is the contrast between Reagan's words and Obama's.



Toward the end, when Obama gets to "the cycle that are (sic) crippling our economy", don't be too hard on Mr. Teleprompter!

Who Is Responsible for the Economic Disaster in the US?

Correct.

Occupy Obamaville

During the Hoover depression, they called 'em "Hoovervilles".



The only differences between a Hooverville and an Obamaville are the quality of the building materials, the lawlessness and lack of cleanliness of the inhabitants.

Crossroads GPS Ad Buy in Swing States

At first glance, Crossroads GPS sounds like it might be an alternative to Garmin for the Christmas shopping season. It is not. The present they hope for under the tree won't get here 'til next November...

The Republican-affiliated outside group Crossroads GPS has launched a major ad buy contrasting President Obama's policies with clips of President Clinton seemingly arguing against tax increases on wealthy Americans.

The large $2.6 million ad buy will run for two weeks in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina, according to the group.

"President Obama has launched a tax attack on American jobs that hits Main Street businesses, home mortgages, and school and road repair funds," said Crossroads GPS president Steven Law in a statement. "Former President Clinton and bipartisan majorities in Congress agree that Obama’s tax hikes won’t solve the problem. The ad aims to get Obama to stop attacking and start listening."

Granted, while I would like to see the unedited clips of Clinton speaking to get the entire context, Obama is the poster child for Tax and Spend.

H/T Memeorandum

Oil Boom No Bust for Strippers in ND

Energy, its exploration and removal, fuels an economic recovery in North Dakota. Why doesn't the Obama administration take the hint and open more of America's natural resources to fuel the national economy?

H/T Rob Port

Stripper Lawyer Raises the Bar

When lawyers pass the bar, is it supposed to be vertical?



Charles Dickens once wrote: "The law is an ass." Very prescient.

A lawyer has told how she turned to stripping to pay bills after struggling to find a legal job in recession-weary America. The attorney, giving her name only as Carla, graduated from law school ten years ago. But after being made redundant in 2009, she had to take drastic action to avoid drowning in a sea of student loans and other debts.

Next time you hear of someone who lost the shirt off their back in the Obama recession, think of poor Carla! Did you hear the one about the lawyer who lost her suit?

H/T Memeorandum

Bam's Jobs Bill Jam

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

____________________________

Same body, different suit?

Same septic tank, different commode?

(Make up your own and insert here).

Senator Mike Lee (R, Utah) used the phrase "Old wine in old bottles."

Last week’s jobs bill speech by President Barack Obama should have all but pounded the final nail into the pine box of Obama's presidency - that is, if there is any sense of order, common sense and justice to the universe. 

How bad is it for the president?

A Republican has just won Anthony Weiner's old seat in Congress here in New York City - a district that hasn't gone Republican since before anyone ever heard the term "social security." 

Babe Ruth was only in his fourth season with the Yankees the last time the Ninth District went GOP.  

The first licensed commercial radio station in the United States had been on the air only three years.

Ronald Reagan was not yet a teenager.

In bluer-than-blue New York, in a district that is at best 4 to 1 Democrat over Republican, that's how bad it's getting for Bam.

The Obama "jobs speech" - the highly anticipated, built-up-beyond-proportion, latest-in-a-long-string-of-America-saving-jobs-speeches from Brack Obama - was yet another one of those head-shaking "just wow" events. (I have them cataloged and meticulously cross-referenced using sophisticated database software).

Not that any of us in the thinking class expected anything less than what we received from the Chief Executive. Not that any of us believed for one moment that anything other than the same-old, same-old was coming our way from the podium of the House chamber.

It was simply one of those, "Wow, I can't believe that this guy is in charge of the whole shootin' match" moments.

If it weren't for the fact that the economic well-being of the nation hangs in the balance, one could almost feel sorry for the man being so far out of his league. If it weren’t for the fact that his experiments in nation transformation have resulted in the highest poverty levels in decades, one could almost take him by the hand, slap him on the back and say, “You tried, kid. But we gotta get some people in here who can fix this. Now, let’s go get some pancakes.”

All that's missing at the White House these days are the antlers and headlights.

While Barack Obama continues to make the job of conservative talk radio hosts tremendously easy, he makes America's economic recovery more difficult. It’s almost inconceivable to believe that he cannot see what he and his ever-encroaching big government ways are doing to this country. But once again, he’s peddling the same spend-spend-spend, expansive policies that have already failed - policies that also stunk up the joint when his predecessor, George W. Bush, implemented his own inane "stimulus" package. It was stupid then; five times as stupid when Obama did it the first time; and even more stupid now that the president wants to try it again.

If ever a man has personified - in spades (no slur intended) - Albert Einstein's over-quoted definition of insanity, it is President Barack Obama. If Obama's proposed jump start to an economy already paralyzed by the ropes of big government is to be taken seriously by anyone not under the influence, then Einstein truly had it pegged.

The logic of the President's thinking would have us handing out shots of Jack Daniels at alcohol anonymous meetings.

Seriously, are we to believe that nearly a half-trillion dollars in additional spending is all we really needed to get us over the hump? That the first Obama stimulus was almost the fix we required to bring us back to economic health? Were we really that close to the fix? Just a half billion dollars off? Did we miss it by that much?

Why not get this economy roaring back with a vengeance? Why not a trillion dollars more? Or five trillion more? While we’re at it, why not raise the minimum wage to $18.50 an hour? And tax the rich at a 70% tax rate? (Even if those Americans making $500,000 a year or more were taxed at a full one hundred percent, revenues wouldn’t even cover the entirety of this year’s deficit. There’d still be $500 billion left to fund somehow).

We already tax the rich in this country.

Yet, there’s a block of taxpayers – approximately 47% - who pay no federal income tax.

“Fair share” anyone?

The President’s rhetoric is tired. He talks about tax cuts in his new plan to get Americans working again, but what he’s proposing aren’t genuine tax cuts. They are temporary tax credits (which means the money is being swiped from elsewhere only to be redistributed) to the tune of approximately $500 a year for the average middle class American family. That’s a whole $500 a year. That’s about $42 dollars a month, or about $10 extra bucks a week.

Shopping malls beware. The stampede’s a-coming.

How does taking money out of the economy and returning it in nearly infinitesimal chunks to other people who did not earn it jump start a flailing economy? When did it ever?

The last Obama tax credit – the one that brought the payroll tax down from 6.2% to 4.2% - really got things moving, didn’t it?

And now, he wants to do it again?

Genuine tax cuts are obviously great - nay, necessary ... but they have to be the right kind of tax cuts. Minuscule credits at the expense of the job creators in this country will prove to be, as it always does, nothing more than ineffective, feel-good, campaign-fodder class warfare. 

It will solve nothing.

And don’t think for second that Democrats will back this “jobs bill” without additional stimulus spending tacked on.

Bank on it.

And why didn't the President actually - and finally - define what "fair share" means in regard to taxing "the rich?" What an opportunity it could have been for him for set the parameters of the debate. He could have told us once and for all what the fairest level of taxation for the "fortunate" among us is.

And notice how the President used the word "fortunate" to describe the wealthiest Americans, as opposed to "hard working," "creative" or "successful."

That simply would never do. It would alienate and/or offend.

That's because good fortune suggests randomness and chance - the luck of the draw.

Creativity, innovation and hard work, on the other hand, place the onus directly on the individual. It suggests that wealth may actually be deserved and earned - an anathema to Obama and his equality-over-liberty ilk.

Think about this: The left believes that government is the answer to almost everything, that only government can get things right. But look around. Government is practically everywhere in the form of taxation, over-regulation, the takeover of private industry, and so on. The size of government continues to grow. Yet, there are now 22 million children living in poverty, according to Government figures. There are now more people without health care coverage than there were last year. Unemployment is fixed at around 9%. There was absolutely no job growth in August.

And yet, the President wants more government?

Oh yeah, it's bad.

Paging Mr. Einstein.

-

Job Scorecard: Barry 14, Barry's economy -1,100

It's time for another installment of "Let's do the math"! I'll wait a couple minutes for all you "social science" majors to clear out. Everybody else? Good.



The Obama administration "invested" in America to get America working again. How's that working out for us? Obama seems convinced that "green energy" is the wave of the future and the path to prosperity, creating thousands of jobs. Let's take a look at two of the administration's efforts



$20 Million for an insulation project in Seattle to conserve energy: Net 14 jobs.

$500 Million dollars for a solar cell manufacturer in California: Net -1,100 jobs.



Let's recap, shall we? $520 Million dollars spent, brought the US a net of one thousand and eighty six jobs lost.



Like the brother-in-law who's totaled every car you've ever loaned him, why do I have the feeling that Obama is going to ask us for the keys again Thursday night, and telling us, "This time it will be different"?

Obama Says of Bush: Adding $4 Trillion To The National Debt Is “Unpatriotic”

Candidate Obama in 2008



The Internet is such a pesky thing!



H/T Rob Port

More here and at Memeorandum

Rare Cost Cutting Measure on Capitol Hill - Longest Serving Democrat Demands an Investigation!

The House’s longest-serving current member, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), is calling on Republican and Democratic leadership to justify their recent decision to terminate the page program.



In a letter sent Friday to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Dingell expressed concerns about the recent cancellation of the program — in effect for nearly 200 years — due to prohibitive costs and advances in technology.

So, the pages were an anachronism, left over from an earlier age where you might need to send a runner from one office to another (or to fetch coffee or the Congressman's dry cleaning), and as a cost saving measure, in difficult economic times, there is no cut so small that some Democrat somewhere will not protest. No program, however antiquated that should be terminated. What was it that Ronald Reagan said? "A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

Boehner and Pelosi’s offices have not responded to requests for comment. The House leaders announced their decision to terminate the program in a joint statement Aug. 8, saying the program will come to an end as of Aug. 31.



The page program employs roughly 70 high school students to serve as messengers and couriers on the House floor and around the Capitol complex, offering them the opportunity to work and attend high school in Congress for a semester, or for several weeks during the summer.



“This decision was not easy, but it is necessary,” Boehner and Pelosi wrote of the cancellation, noting that the cost to operate the program exceeds $5 million annually.

To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, "Five million here and five million there, and pretty soon, it'll add up to real money!" I wonder if Dingell will ever figure out that he could hire whomever he wants out of his own office budget? Nah. Maybe the honor of having a berry named after him has gone to his head?



H/T Memeorandum

Another "Green" Company Goes Belly Up in the Age of Obama

This time in the land of liberals, Taxachusetts.

Evergreen Solar Inc., the Massachusetts clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies from the Patrick administration for an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy, listing $485.6 million in debt.



Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The cash-strapped company announced today has sought a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and auction off assets.

Getting a sense of déjà vu yet? Just last month, we heard that an electric car company in Salinas padlocked their doors after half a million dollars from state and local governments.



A month before that, electric car company Think Global AS filed for bankruptcy, too.

Think Global AS plans to liquidate its assets, according to a statement from its exclusive battery supplier, Ener1 Inc.



Ener1, which engineers and makes its batteries in the Indianapolis area at its EnerDel subsidiary, notified investors Wednesday that the company would take a charge of more than $32 million on unpaid loans and accounts receivable from Think Global.

Green cars, batteries for green cars, solar panels...all the industries that people like Obama tout as the hope for American and for jobs seems to be illusory at best. Particularly, after the public money runs out.



In May of 2010, Obama visited Solyndra Solar, in Fremont, California.

President Obama toured the Solyndra plant in Freemont, (sic) Calif. and gave an address before the press and state officials, including California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, outlining his vision for a thriving U.S. alternative energy sector buoyed by government funding.



"The promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith,” Obama said, “It’s not just some abstract possibility for science fiction movies or a distant future or 10 years down the road or 20 years, it’s happening right now. The future is here.” – President Obama, speaking at Solyndra Solar.

And just how did that work out, Mr. President? According to Jane Jamison:

Solyndra Solar Panel plant in Fremont, California has wasted a billion dollars, $535 million of those a direct bailout from U.S. taxpayers, and it is going “bust.”



The Solyndra Solar panel plant in Fremont, California served as the convenient “backdrop” for Barack Obama’s “green economy” speeches in California, and other campaigning Democrats.

So, for those of you without a score card, there are two types of "green" energy companies in the Age of Obama: Plants that produce expensive energy and cars no one wants to drive, that are only kept afloat by the massive infusion of government subsidies, and plants that produce expensive energy and cars no one wants to drive, that could not keep their doors open despite a massive infusion of government subsidies.



Got it? Now if only someone in this administration could!



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Innumeracy-R-Us in the Democrat Party

Ever notice how, with the Obama administration, the hits just keep on comin'?





Money quote starts at :48

The Obama administration seems to be the new home of economic illiteracy (innumeracy). Remember last December, when Nancy Pelosi (who told us in 2007 that the price of gas was way too high at $2.25 a gallon and she and a Democrat Congress were going to "do something about it"), told us of the economic benefits of unemployment?

"Economists tell us that unemployment insurance returns $2 to the economy for every $1 spent."

-Nancy Pelosi



At that time, I said:

So, for the moment, let's say that the Speaker has her facts straight: Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance returns two dollars to the economy. Would not the reverse be true as well:

For every dollar taken from someone in taxes, two dollars is removed from the economy?



At best, that would be a wash. Factor in that the government is so inefficient in nearly everything it does, the overhead to get that dollar where it is going may siphon off 70 to 80% in bloated government overhead, and you've got a losing proposition.

So, here is Obama's Agriculture Secretary parroting the same economic nonsense. A dollar of food stamps received, for starters, takes more than a dollar to deliver the benefit to the recipient. A lot gets siphoned of in the bureaucracy. But, setting aside for the moment the waste and inefficiency inherent in most government endeavors, the same holds true for food stamps as for unemployment. Before that dollar of food stamps can "generate" (stop laughing!) the mythical $1.84, it must first take a dollar out of the economy, through taxes, which, if left alone, would presumably "generate" the identical amount of economic activity. More, actually, since the overhead is less. The only "economic activity" generated is for the salaries of government bureaucrat, office space to house them, and all the expenses in staffing, heating, cooling and furnishing government offices.



Of course this is an administration that believes we can spend our way out of debt by "spreading the wealth". Tom and Nancy fit right in.



Cross posted at LCR.

Obama Eats His Words

Dear Lord, may my words always be sweet and tender, for I may have to eat them one day!



KIRK - The Toledo Blade

Obama's Proposed Train to Nowhere

Notice any similarity between the train's logo and that of anyone in particular running for re-election in 2012?



Remember Obama's State of the Union address? There was one portion so blindingly, mind numbingly stupid that I've been hesitant up to now, to try to point out just how truly awful it is.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Aside from the utter dishonesty of implying that the TSA has no design on increasing security at every train station throughout the US, how good a prescription for an ailing economy is high speed rail?



It was recently announced that the cost of the initial section of California's proposed high-speed rail line will cost $2.9 billion to $6.8 billion. Wait! Do I have that right? Sorry! The initial section of California's proposed high-speed rail line will cost $2.9 billion to $6.8 billion more than originally projected. And that cost was estimated at $7.1 billion in 2009.



Disturbing too, was the talk here in California, earlier this year, that we must act quickly to start construction or lose federal funding. Even though back in February, Florida Governor Rick Scott returned $2.4 billion in federal funds for building a similar high-speed rail project between Tampa and Orlando. Neither town at the termination of California's initial high speed rail would have either the population of Tampa or Orlando.



Damn the torpedoes! High speed ahead! And those are the cost overruns for just the first 190 miles of a proposed 800 mile system (and that, only in California, if Obama were to get his way!). So, first, imagine a $14 billion dollar system, before the first real cost "overrun" is realized, that would connect two towns out in the middle of the boonies, without sufficient ridership to ever even pay the maintenance costs, much less ever realize even a break even on the investment. Now quadruple that figure for the full 800 miles, better throw in a fudge factor, because you know the price isn't getting any cheaper, and you've got a $64 billion dollar plus rail system that will require both state and federal subsidies to stay afloat, probably forever.



And, back to the President's lame joke about the "pat down". Forget merely screening the passengers before they board, although, this too would happen. Imagine having to prevent a terrorist attack on the entire 800 miles of track.



At an airport, the goal is to keep anyone from bringing anything dangerous onto the plane. With high speed rail, you have to do all that, plus prevent anyone from sabotaging 800 miles of track or pushing something as easy to find (or steal) as an old pickup truck into the path of a train moving too fast to stop, destroying it with its own energy and the laws of physics.



A high speed train full of people, should the government subsidize the ticket sales enough to promote ridership, would be a tempting target for a terrorist. No amount of TSA agents in the stations can safeguard the entire rail line. At least when you fly, it's a lot harder for them to catch you or drop a big rock on your path!



And there's something for the Green Weenies to dislike as well. The Environmental Impact Report for this rail line that would transect the state, north to south, considered the environmental impact...100 ft. on either side of the tracks. Oh, yeah! We hardly impact the environment at all (within a 100 feet of the rails)! God help any migratory critter that tries to go from one half of the state to the other!



The implications for farm land are even murkier. For every acre of farmland that the rail line transects, you lose not only that 200 foot plus swath, but you lose more, in that every new fence line means additional acreage lost to crops where it is inefficient to plant, plus access roads, and then add to that, the added costs and inefficiencies of transporting tractors, harvesters and farm workers to the other side of a once contiguous field, and to one degree or another, you raise the cost of agriculture.



So, with so many things going against high speed rail, spending billions upon billions with little to no hope of return, when both the state and the country are deeply in debt, with no guarantee of ridership or even that the system will be completed outside the towns of Hooterville and Petticoat Junction, why would anyone even dream of pursuing this?



One, you have the statist dream of getting everyone out of their cars into mass transit. Those who would adopt the European model of "making the trains run on time", generally overlook the size and grandeur of this great nation. Google two cities of any European country and see how long those rail lines are compared to just California. Rail makes more sense in smaller countries.

Emulating the Europeans in this point would only be to emulate the worst of them in accumulating debt.



Two, politicians like to spend money. The more of it that can toss around, the longer they can maintain themselves in power. There would be some favored contractors, who, undoubtedly will contribute heavily to certain political "leaders", but you can't grow the economy on government funds, since the government merely "spreads the wealth" through taxes, taking it out of other areas in the economy that might actually generate new wealth and a "larger pie".



Someone should drive a stake through the heart of this high speed rail proposal. Just drawing up the plans for this has already cost the taxpayer in the neighborhood of $58 million dollars, before a single spike is driven.

The Obama administration announced this week it's giving California $179 million

Can you say "A drop in the bucket"? High speed rail is a rathole we're throwing money down. We not only need to stop, but we need to replace more than a few of the rats who think this is a good idea.



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"Consumer Confidence Jumps to New Low"

-by Brian Fairrington



I like the mouse ears on the door sign, the unfinished Rubik's Cube and the darts that land everywhere except on the target...



H/T Dead Tree Newspaper

Obama the Passive

Sometimes, after you've heard a speech, you need to see those comments in print before certain things jump out at you. From the President's speech Monday (his opening line):

“On Friday, we learned that the United States received a downgrade by one of the credit rating agencies, not so much because they doubt our ability to pay our debt if we make good decisions, but because after witnessing a month of wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, they doubted our political system’s ability to act.”

Putting aside Obama's demonstration of the good liberal quality of not addressing what Standard & Poor's actually said so much as what he thinks he can argue against, note the passive language the president uses: "the United States received a downgrade". I received mail on Friday. I didn't have to do anything, it just came to me! On my birthday, I received presents. I didn't have to work for them, they just came to me.



And this whole bond rating thing, why I must not have done anything there, either, because I just received it! You think if this were a good thing, the president would be speaking passively? No. It would be, "I fought for this!" or "I battled the Republicans and wrestled this concession from them".



But, no. This was a bad thing, so in typical liberal victimology, this was something that happened to the US, while Obama was president, that was beyond his control.

Except, it wasn't. Obama had all of 2010 up until October to tell the Democrats in Congress to "Eat your peas" and pass a budget. They had a majority in both houses and the White House, they could have passed any budget they wanted. It could have included spending cuts and any tax increases they believed were prudent or necessary. They did nothing. Obama did nothing. In that sense, I guess you could say he was passive in not providing adequate leadership.



But, the House, under Speaker Pelosi kept passing continuing resolutions, in lieu of an actual budget, kicking the can down the road until they could use it to demagogue the Republicans. Mission Accomplished.



Obama was certainly not passive when it came to spending. The trillions he spent and is still planning to spend, without sufficient income to cover it is what fomented the crisis. Taxing the incomes of "millionaires and billionaires" at 100% would not feed the insatiable beast that is big government. And despite all the money spent on failed stimulus, and all the green projects and all his cronies (okay, not all his cronies. There must be someone Barack knows who isn't a "Czar" yet!), he still wants to portray the consequences of out of control spending as a passive event. "I was just sitting here, minding my own business, when out of the blue, that darned S&P downgraded my credit rating!"



Only that's the trouble Barry. Instead of minding your own business (and your numerous vacations and golf outings), you should have been minding the country's business. Then, you would not have earned your spot in history as "Obama the Ineffectual".



And that whole "...ability to pay our debt if we make good decisions" thing? It reminds me of when Richard Nixon was running for a second term. They asked noted psychic Jeanne Dixon if Nixon would be re-elected. Her prediction? "I predict Richard Nixon will be re-elected...if he doesn't make too many mistakes." Mirabile dictu! That woman had real psychic powers! In other words, it was the kind of statement you make when you don't want to be proven wrong. "I can fly to the moon without a spaceship...if I can just learn how to flap my arms fast enough!"



When the country needed reassurance and leadership, Obama voted "present" yet again. While he was blowing smoke about the "markets" believing the US was "still AAA", the stock market dropped thirty points in the time it took him to finish his speech. With leadership like that, who needs enemies?



You spent your way to your administration "receiving" the downgrade. You like to say you "inherited" this economy? You inherited an economy with a AAA credit rating. Whatever you have "inherited, you have only further weakened and made worse by both your inactivity of leadership and your very aggressive deficit spending. Enjoy the rest of your term, Barry. Don't bother to get up! We can find our way out without you.



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"Poormongering" -video

Here's Bill Whittle making an excellent comparison of what "poverty" in America really means.

"Poormongering". That's a good word. I like it!



"The richest poor people in the history of the world."

I have often noted that the "poor" in our country live longer and more comfortable lives than medieval kings. It's all a matter of whom you compare yourselves to.

"The real poverty in America is a poverty of dependency..."

And ingratitude. Rather than waking up every day, thankful for what we have, we as a people, rich and poor alike, constantly compare ourselves with those who have more and resent them for it and curse rather than bless our bounty and our freedom.







H/T I Own the World



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

E-Trade Baby Loses Everything

Caution: There is a little course language, insufficiently bleeped for you to know exactly what he's saying. But, if you can get by that, it's as funny as it can be, given the underlying reality of the situation.







I found another copy.



H/T Troglopundit

"Halfway There"