Detroit Confidential

Back in the 50's and 60's there were a several movies all claiming to lift the veil from various cities and show the audience what was going on.

They were mostly fake and offered little information.

This one actually does show you the facts. And its contents were confidential only because the Lame Stream Media won't show you what has happened.

This video will dismay and shock you. It shows in graphic detail what 40 plus years of Democratic political leadership and control has done.

It should be a warning as to what Obamaie is leading is too.

Click here for the video.




On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Yeah, my Dad told me about this

An Alabama fan is drinking in a New York bar, when he gets a call on his cell phone.
He hangs up, grinning from ear to ear, and orders a round of drinks for everybody in the bar, announcing his wife has just given birth to a typical Alabama baby boy weighing 25 pounds.

Nobody can believe that any new baby can weigh in at 25 pounds, but the Alabama fan just shrugs and replies, "That's about average back home, folks, like I said, my boy's a typical Alabama baby boy. Gonna be an Alabama football player."

Congratulations showered him from all around, a mid many exclamations of "WOW!" One woman actually fainted due to sympathy pains.

Two weeks later, dude returns to the bar. The bartender says, "Say, aren't you the father of that typical Alabama baby boy that weighed 25 pounds at birth? Everybody's been making bets about how big he'd be in two weeks. So, how much does he weigh now?"

The proud father answers, "Seventeen pounds."

The bartender is puzzled, concerned and a little suspicious. "What happened? He already weighed 25 pounds the day he was born !"

The Alabama father takes a slow swig of his beer, wipes his lips on his shirt sleeve , leans into the bartender and proudly says..........

"Had him circumcised."

Hat tip to my correspondent from the Northwest, Bill F!






On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Obama announces rule changes

Obama has now appointed a Golf Czar. Announcements were just made of
major rule changes in the game of golf which will become effective
March 2010. This is only a preview as the complete rule book is being
rewritten as we speak. Here are a few basic changes:

Golfers with handicaps - below 10 will have their green fees increased
by 35%. - between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees. -
above 18 will get a $25 check each time they play.

The dollar amount placed in bets will be as follows: -for handicaps
below 10, an additional $10. -between 11 and 18, no additional amount.
-above 18, you will receive the total amount in the pot even if you do
not play.

The term "gimme" will be changed to "entitlement" and will be used
as follows: -handicaps below 10, no entitlements. -handicaps from 11
to 17, entitlements for putter length putts. -handicaps above 18, if
your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.
These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most
importantly, equality in scoring.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or
six pars in any given round. Any excess must be given to those fellow
players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all
players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making
the birdie or par,can that player begin to count his pars and birdies
again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes
but the term 'net score' will be available only for scoring those
players with handicaps of 18 and above. This is intended to
'redistribute' the success of winning by making sure that in every
competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only 'net score'
against every other player's gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf.

Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with Ability

Hat tip to Ron C!



On Twitter I am Lesabre1

State AGs call health care bill unconstitutional

This whole health care thing has become so obviously unconstitutional you have to wonder how Congress can collective not break out in laughter at us idiots who elected them.

In the mean time thirteen (13) State Attorney Generals have sent a notification of "knock the shit off" to Lyin' Nancy and Surrender Harry.

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster
Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKenna
Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox
Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott
Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers
Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King
Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem
Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims
Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett
Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff
Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum
Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden
Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley
Attorney General, South Dakota

When you find Michigan and Texas agreeing on anything you should pay attention. And if your AG isn't a co-signer... well, you have a telephone don't you??

Link



On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Driving while texting and other stupid things

I'm pretty much libertarian when it comes to things like no smoking anyplace and John marrying Jack, etc., etc. I don't believe in the secondhand smoke theory anymore than I believe in man made global warming and I figure John and Jack getting married will cause them the same amount of grief as Jack marrying Jill. And it might actually help society to have two more people theoretically devoted to each other and a calm stable relationship.

As for the smokes, that's a nose issue, not a health issue and while I don't smoke and would urge you not to, as long as we are willing to tax'em and sell'em we should just shut up and suffer as we do with drunks who kill more people on the highway than second hand smoke does in the cancer wards.

But I am not unreasonable when it comes to certain restrictions on my freedoms. I do not, for example, object to being told I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and I have zero problems with this:

America's roads should be safer in 2010, as bans on texting while driving go into effect in New Hampshire, Oregon and Illinois. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, that will make 19 states that have outlawed the practice, not including six states that prohibit using hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel.

"This legislation is important and will make our roads safer. No driver has any business text messaging while they are driving," said Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, whose office regulates drivers.

Yes, you would think that is pretty simple stuff, but there remains a large population of "Dummies are Us" still at large and determined to muck things up. To wit about texting.

Tina Derby, 42, of Warner, N.H., said she has no intention to stop texting while driving, despite the possible $100 fine she could receive.

"I'd better start saving my money," Derby said.

You folks in Warner have been warned.

Link






On Twitter I am Lesabre1

First word

This is an election year. We can expect the Left to make many outrageous claims.

Among them will be a continuation of the charge that to oppose Obamie The Bower is to be a racist and to hate him and to wish him evil.

Let me respond.

1. Opposing Obamie the Bower is not racist and it is beyond silly to claim that.

2. Opposing Obamie The Bower does not mean you hate him. Anyone making such a claim only demonstrates their hatred of democracy and freedom.

3. Opposing Obamie does not mean you wish him evil. I oppose his policies and his political philosophy. He is an elitist collectivist who wishes to change this country in ways I find un acceptable.

Never the less I wish him and his family personal good health and happiness.

Now that we've got that out of the way let the games begin!







On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Alcohol reducing plan

Better known as.... Where's that hottie I went home with last night?






On Twitter I am Lesabre1