Wow, I didn’t realize taking Tylenol aided in regulating one’s heartbeat! Is there anything Tylenol can’t do? Do Advil, Ibuprofen and their generic brand counterparts also correct irregular heartbeats? If so, they really should update their labels! New commercials, stat!

Perhaps it is unfair of me to use my biology degree and basic understanding of physiology against Dr. Obama, er, I mean President Obama. Then again, he has a Surgeon General and an entire Health and Human Services agency who I am sure would be happy to clue him in on matters of cardiology, or at least refer him to someone who does (that is, if they’re “into” referrals).

At the very least, he could do a quick search of “pacemaker” on WebMD or some other medical website to easily ascertain that pain relievers are only necessary during post-op following the insertion of a pacemaker not for the actual function of regulating a heartbeat. Yes, my doctor friends abhor medical websites, but Obama could at least consult one to figure out the difference between pain killers and major medical procedures.

Obama likes to equate himself to Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps he should acquaint himself with Lincoln’s famous quip in paraphrasing Proverbs 17:28, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” Obama should heed this sound counsel, most especially when discussing matters he knows absolutely nothing about, like pacemakers, tonsillectomies and amputations. (All three videos are below.)

Perhaps Obama refuses to understand basic cardiology since cardiologists are … wait for it … specialists! What’s so terrible about specialists? According to Obama, specialists are the arch-enemy of the general practitioner.

Silly me. I thought GPs worked with specialists, offering referrals so patients could receive expert help for specific medical conditions that are well past the “preventative treatment” phase. Let’s say a GP discovered preliminary symptoms related to heart disease during a routine office visit. He or she may refer a patient to a (gasp!) cardiologist for specific heart health care. The cardiologist, upon further examination of the patient, orders a stress test and, as a result, performs angioplasty. Are we to expect GPs to begin performing angioplasties? Imagine your primary care physician’s waiting room then!

Darn those young medical students, buried in heaps of student loan debt, who apparently hold their noses up to the common folk by furthering their education and completing multi-year residencies concentrating on specific medical conditions that require specific medical expertise. Darn them all for inserting pacemakers to people who would apparently be just fine with a pain killer. Darn them all for causing angioplasties to occur in hospital operating rooms rather than in Exam Room #4.

Obama, put away your toy stethoscope and end the silly photo-ops. Doctors don’t wear white coats outside the office, unless of course, you supply them.

Americans are not idiots. We are not so easily fooled. We are tired of the shenanigans and we are growing weary of your incompetence. The American people elected a Commander-in-Chief not a Doctor-in-Chief. Why don’t you concentrate on the war in Afghanistan and let doctors stick to medicine.

Paging real doctors! Paging real doctors! Oh, here’s one. HotAir has a piece on a doctor who refused to attend the photo-op at the White House. Good for him. He speaks out about the invitation to “discuss” current health care proposals. I suppose by “discuss” Obama really means, “I talk, you listen” because there wasn’t a lot of “discussing” going on, merely an empty speech accompanied by a few props clad in white coats. If only Nurse Ratched had made an appearance.

For those of you who don’t remember what Obama said about pacemakers, tonsillectomies and amputations, here’s a trip down memory lane.

Obama doesn’t have time to talk to General McKiernan in Afghanistan (his own appointee) regarding his request for more troops, economic and political aid but he can drop everything to fly 4000 miles to participate in a 45 minute presentation. (Watch Obama’s presentation on HotAir here.)

Did Obama really think he could trump the last 9 months of his “Apologizing for America World Tour” by making a 45 minute appeal to grant an Olympics bid to a city that’s so “great” it’s called Second City? Even in his attempt, he couldn’t keep himself from telling the IOC that America basically needed the Olympics to restore its good name. In response to a question, he actually said:

“Over the last several years sometimes that fundamental truth about the United States has been lost. One of the legacies of this Olympic Games would be the restoration of that understanding of what the United States is all about and a recognition of how we are linked to the world.”

In short, help us get our groove back, IOC!

In this particular scenario, Michelle Obama is the worse of the two offenders. You’ve seen the audacious quote from her speech to the Chicago 2016 bid team (bold italics, mine):

“As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.”

Michelle Obama says participating in this presentation is a “sacrifice” but doesn’t exactly explain what’s so sacrificial about packing designer clothes, flying on a private jumbo jet or getting away for a few days with Oprah Winfrey on the taxpayer’s dime. I would call that an extraordinary get-away unlike any I’d ever experienced! “Sacrificial” wouldn’t even make the list of 1,000,000 adjectives!

Michelle Obama wouldn’t know “sacrifice” if it looked her in the face, wearing fatigues, waving an American flag, surrounded by little boys and girls going without their Mommy and Daddy while they fight in an ongoing war in two countries.

If she thinks this trip is a sacrifice then she is out of touch with the American people. So much, in fact, it’s almost painful. Is she ignorant of the climbing unemployment rate? Is she callous to the situation of our military families? Does she know the sacrifices made every day by everyday Americans to put food on the table, to send their kids to school, to make ends meet while she and her husband spend, spend, spend? She should just get it over with and say to the deployed military personnel, military families, unemployed Americans and the fiscally strained, “Let them eat cake.”

HotAir grabbed CNN’s shock and dismay as the IOC makes the announcement. As the anchor grasps for words, I find myself hoping the jaw-dropping is repeated in newsrooms around American in 2010 when the out-of-touch Democrats get booted from Washington.

As @Doc_O said on Twitter, “Cheer up, Axelrod! Obama failed to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016, but he’ll bring the Republicans to Washington in 2010.” I sure hope so, as long as they’re conservative Republicans and not RINOs in the form of McCain, Graham or Snowe.

What can we learn from this?

Obama will spend, spend, spend. Michelle will go on lavish overseas trips and spend, spend, spend. The taxpayers will continue to pay for the spending sprees. What we’ll receive in return: Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Wait, that’s not exactly right. We’ll “get” something all right: a huge deficit unlike any we’ve ever seen coupled with skyrocketing inflation. Yes, Bush ran up the deficit in 8 years. It only took Obama 8 months to triple it.

As Obama flies back to America I hope he’s thinking about his next two losses: government-run health care and the hoax of cap-and-tax.

In the meantime, someone hand Valerie Jarrett a Kleenex.

I never questioned whether or not the state legislature would acquiesce. I knew what would happen. I was here when it happened once before.

You see, when John Kerry and John Edwards (you know, the father of the love-child sometimes referred to as “furniture expense”) were on the national ticket for the Democratic Party in 2004, people here with their Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers actually thought they’d win! How laughable.

Even though John Forbes Kerry had the initials JFK, I knew the country wouldn’t be fooled for several reasons:

1. He wasn’t able to have “JFK” printed on the ballots.
2. His charm is as winning as Lurch from the Addams family.
3. In explaining his opposition to the supplemental funding bill for US troops he famously quipped, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
4. Do you really need more reasons? Fine. Check out the Top Ten Flip-Flops as compiled by CBS.

The people of Massachusetts, however, seriously thought John Kerry would win! In order to keep then Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to replace John Kerry, the state legislature changed the law to remove the Governor’s authority to name a replacement.

What goes around, comes around. Unless you’re Massachusetts where laws are for suckers! You don’t need to follow the law. No, you just change the law. Sure, Barack Obama was guaranteed this state by having a D after his name but what sealed the deal was his catch phrase, “Change you can believe in!” Massachusetts should coin that as their official state motto or at least add it as a license plate option.

Just this week they changed the law back. This morning, Governor Deval Patrick (whose campaign slogan, thanks to David Axelrod, was “Together We Can!”) announced that Paul Kirk, former Kennedy staffer and longtime Kennedy friend, would serve as a temporary replacement.

Kirk is headed to Washington to represent Ted Kennedy and vote the way Kennedy would on all things health care, cap and trade, student loans and whatever other government-controlled bill is up for a vote. The special election will occur on January 19th and I’ll be doing what I can to keep another Kennedy-Kerry-Dukakis type out of office. In the meantime, I’ll just try to keep sane with all the candidate ads that have already begun to run on every single channel here in Massachusetts. It’s going to be a long 117 days!

We know how well the Illinois appointee Roland Burris is doing in Washington. For instance, would Paul Kirk vote to defund ACORN or would he go the way of Burris? We know how he’ll vote on everything else.

Theory #1: She takes the low road and equates all criticism to violent rhetoric.

Theory #2: She needs you to think criticisms of her inability to lead or build consensus are waged solely by discredited crazy people.

Theory #3: Choking up worked for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

Let’s take a look at what she said:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw — I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco, this kind of — of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave — it created a climate in which we — violence took place.

And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that — that some of the people — the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.

But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Let’s look at that final section a little closer:
“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe…” Yes, Nancy, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Ah, but then there’s the but. A big but.
“… but I also think…”

Try explaining “but” to a young person. It’s a fun exercise. I remember my nephew remarking to my niece about her Mario Kart skills on the Nintendo Wii last Christmas, “You’re a good driver, but you run in to everything.” My husband explained to him that when you use the word “but” it negates everything you’ve said before it. He asked, “What does ‘negate’ mean?” “Cancels out.” “Oh!” He then proceeded to put to use what he learned … all night. “That’s a cool character but he sure is ugly.” “That’s a fast car but not as fast as mine!” “You’re funny but your jokes are pretty lame.” We told him it didn’t always have to be a negative thing. Then he said, “I don’t like vegetables but this is good broccoli!” (Disclaimer: He does like vegetables.) He said he’d never look at the word “but” the same again. It was a proud moment for me — so long as he uses it to understand English grammar and not for put downs with his classmates, teammates or sisters! I’m afraid my ten year old nephew knows more about sentence structure than Nancy Pelosi but she is a politician and politicians love to use the word “but” to reroute their message towards what they really think.

So what does Nancy Pelosi really think?
“… but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

I remember when attendees to the health care town hall meetings became even more frustrated. It was shortly after August 5, 2009, when Nancy Pelosi was asked if she thought town hall meetings consisted of a genuine grassroots opposition. Not only did she say they were astroturf, she said they were carrying swastikas and symbols like that. Excuse me? Town halls were flooded by local constituents wearing swastikas? Really? Where are those pictures? That’s quite a charge. I’d like to see proof of town hall meetings where people are carrying swastikas and symbols like that. I’d like to see the people around them tolerating it. The LaRouche people are known for adding Hitler’s mustache to U.S. Presidents, including President Obama. I don’t remember Speaker Pelosi’s concern when LaRouche had pictures of President Bush as Hitler. As a US citizen, I don’t want any US President, current or former, being depicted as Hitler. I’m consistent like that. No, those aren’t “public option” opponents, Nancy. You might know that if the New York Times did a little investigative journalism. Heck, access to Wikipedia can take you pretty far. A phone call to their offices would seal the deal. Perhaps you’re just in denial that the founder of LaRouche ran for President 8 times: once with the Labor Party and 7 times with the Democratic Party.

A mere two days after she accused health care opponents of carrying swastikas, she penned an op-ed with House Majority Leader, Stenny Hoyer, where she called health care protesters un-American. In an earlier post entitled “Health Care: The Fight’s Not Over” I said:

Why do Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer call opponents of the current Health Care bill “un-American” when Pelosi told the anti-war protesters of Code Pink who interrupted one of her meetings in 2006 that “there is nothing more articulate, more eloquent, to a member of Congress than the voice of his or her constituent.” She goes on to say she likes dissenters. Listen to it here. Did Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer think they could quiet the American people by referring to us as un-American? If their goal was to douse the enthusiasm against the bill or to assuage the doubts we the people have towards our government’s ability to run anything well, it’s obvious they have only managed to add fuel to the fire.

Is Nancy Pelosi inciting people by equating them to Nazis and then calling them un-American? Before you answer that question, you have to ask another: Inciting them to what? Inciting them to anger? Yes. Inciting them to violence? No. The American people can handle your slander, Nancy Pelosi. They can handle your lies. They can even handle the “deer in the headlights” look on your face from all the botox. They do see what you are doing, though, and that is an attempt to distract from your poor record in the House, from your hyper-partisan antics, your disdain for the American people and your inability to hold accountable people like Charlie Rangel. You’re third in line to the Presidency but you are hardly capable of running a country when you can’t keep your own House in order.

Now let’s watch her delivery (no actual tears):

Would Pelosi have fared better if she had taken a cue from Hillary Clinton and let her voice waver a little longer?

Pete Sessions (R-TX) cuts to the chase when responding to Nancy Pelosi: (bold emphasis, mine)

“Speaker Pelosi is right that the American people are upset, but it is her own words that continue to fuel voter frustration in America,” said Sessions, R-Texas. “No longer content with criticizing concerned citizens for being ‘un-American,’ the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda. During one of the most important policy debates of our time, the American people have been completely abandoned by those elected representatives under her control. Voters are justifiably frustrated with Washington, and the Speaker’s verbal assault on voters accomplishes nothing other than furthering her reputation for being wildly out of touch with the American people.“

Nancy Pelosi should concentrate on bringing more decorum to the House of Representatives by:

As a nation, we expect more from our leaders. Step it up, Speaker Pelosi, or step down.