The big story in last fall’s election was the Republican resurgence in Congress. The red states took over the House and cut the Democrats’ margin in the Senate.
Why the Republican success? Well, they promised to reduce spending and bring an end to our projected multi-trillion dollar deficits. Now, the Republicans have spoken. If their budget plan is adopted, federal spending will be reduced by $82 billion in 2011. In any other arena $82 billion might mean something but, on the scale of federal budgets, it is truly chump change. If all of the Republican ‘cuts’ are enacted the federal budget will be reduced by a whopping 2%. Instead of being $1,482,000,000,000 the 2011 deficit will be only $1,400,000,000,000. Wow. Way to go guys. At this rate we can expect the federal budget to be balanced by, uh, never.
__________________________________________________________
Speaking of red states and blue states—why do you suppose the Republican states are red and the Democrat states are blue? Logically, the Democrat states should be red because red is the color usually associated with the Left. Blue, on the other hand is a cold, unwelcoming color—much more appropriate for the classic characterization of Republicans.
The answer, of course, is that the extreme Left, the communists, expropriated the color red over a century ago. It would be unfair to associate modern-day Democrats with folks like Trotsky, Lenin, and Che Guevara. After all, those guys carried guns.
What concerns me is that the choice of red and blue for our two parties really precludes a third-party movement from ever getting off the ground. Why? Logically, this would be the ‘white’ party and that would never do.
We should just mix red and blue together and paint the country purple.
Posted by Lloyd Williams 



Hey Everybody, Let’s Invade Libya!
March 4, 2011President Obama announced he has ordered plans drawn up giving the US military “full capacity to act, potentially rapidly,” in Libya. Apparently the idea is to divert our attention from trillion-dollar deficits, 9% unemployment, and the new season of American Idol.
Libyan Dictator Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi, (Quadafi, Khadaffy, Gadaffi). Motto, "I don't care how you spell my name as long as you mention it." Colonel? This guy's been in charge for forty years and he still hasn't been promoted to General?
Or perhaps he’s hoping that we’ll pay less attention to the fifty American soldiers returning from Afghanistan every month in aluminum boxes.
It’s a shame that Libyans are dying in the streets of Tripoli and Benghazi. But the Arab world has made it plenty clear that, when they’re busy killing each other, they don’t want Americans intervening and spoiling the fun. We should honor their wishes.
The one real “hope” when Obama was elected was that he might have the balls to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. (According to a recent Gallup poll, 76% of Americans think we should bug out of Afghanistan most ricky tick). No such luck. Obama upped the ante, sending in more troops and money. We are now losing 10 soldiers and $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. The only thing we’ve accomplished is to stabilize the price of heroin.
Now Obama is toying with the idea of yet another foreign adventure. Apparently he’s tiring of “George Bush’s wars” and would like one of his very own.