So Pres BO would rather lose the Brooklyn Bridge than waterboard a terrorist?

Just imagine this.

What would Dems be saying if we had lost The Brooklyn Bridge to a terrorist attack?

Or had a big hole in downtown LA?

Or had a dozen 747s blown up over the Pacific?

What would the Dems be saying if word got out that we had a terrorist under arrest who knew about these attacks?

What would the Dems be saying if we learned that the Bush administration refused to waterboard him for fear of being unpopular?

The Dems would say: Impeach Bush!

They would say: Why didn't Bush defend the country!

Thankfully, Pres Bush put country first.

Thankfully, we got information that prevented terrorist attacks.

As VP Cheney said: It's in the memos that Pres BO has selectively released.

Last night, Pres BO was asked a question about waterboarding. He refused to say that he would waterboard a terrorist in order to get information.

What's going on?

Is BO naive?

Or is he just telling the base what they want to hear?

Michael Goodwin saw the press conference and posted this:

"Asked about the widespread belief by some military leaders, Dick Cheney and former heads of the CIA, that waterboarding terrorists had yielded life-saving information, the President insisted, "We could have gotten the information in other ways, ways that are consistent with our values."

How can he be certain?

He can't be, but he has nonetheless built a policy banning the practice and justifying it with his genuine belief.

This is the kind of confidence that can kill."

Let's hope that BO was just telling the base what they wanted to hear.

He did it on Iraq and then implemented the Bush-McCain policy.

Why not just tell the ACLU and MoveOn.org what they want to hear on interrogation techniques?

Nevertheless, it really worries me that we have a president who doesn't see the seriousness of this war on terror.

We say it again: This is a fairy tale and it won't have a happy ending!

Pres BO will own the next attack and it won't be pretty!

Let Specter and the Dems own these deficits!

We have a great opportunity to define the political terrain.

Let's move on and play ball.

On one side, everybody who supported the so called stimulus plan and Obama-economics!

On the other side, those of us who believe that this won't work!

I'm confident that we are right.

Let us be the party that voted "no" on a bill that no one read. In fact, this is the same bill that approved the AIG bonus.

Let us be the party that voted "no" on a budget that included 9,000 earmarks and a provision that violated NAFTA.

How proud was Pres Obama of signing that budget? He didn't do it in public.

Don't let the "fairy tale" get to you.

Fairy tales are for children. Adults usually crash when they grab on to a fairy tale.

This is where we are on the economy.

We've created an economic situation that calls for federal budget deficits in excess of 10% of GDP for 2 years, and probably more.

Why is that important? We have never done that before, even in the depths of World War 2.

Sooner or later, someone is going to have to defend their votes on creating these deficits.

It will be a pleasure to say in 2010, and specially 2012, that we didn't do it. Instead, the Dems did it. (House passes budget plan endorsing Obama goals: "Not a single Republican voted for the measure; 17 Democrats, mostly from GOP-leaning districts, voted against it.")

Be patient Republicans.

We are on the right track. We will win again.

Don't let all of the "doom and gloom" get to you. We are headed in the right direction!

Dick Morris has a great post on Obama's first 100 days:

"Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies.

Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive.

Why?

• You can’t borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy;

• The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover;

• His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land;

• His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won’t work and is just what got us into this situation.

So Mr. Obama should enjoy his poll numbers while he may.'

Yes, enjoy the fairy tale. It won't have a happy ending for those who've created these deficits.

Rmember this: "....Obama's honeymoon, like all vacations from reality, will soon come to an end." (Obama's Vision Deficit)

Blaming Bush is getting very dishonest!

CALVIN WOODWARD of AP has a good post today about Pres BO blaming Pres Bush: FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape!

It confirms what we posted before.

Pres BO was not an innocent bystander. Under Pres BO's policies, our federal budget deficit has gone from 3% of GDP to over 10% of GDP.

Let's look at some facts:

"Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion....."

As we have pointed out, Sen BO voted for everything that he "inherited", such as TARP.

After becoming Pres BO, he put through a $787 billion stimulus that added to the deficit.

BO has gotten away with the "I inherited" line because the media has not challenged him.

Perhaps, Calvin Woodward's article is the return of journalism. Wouldn't that be nice?

We were not attacked again and that's an impressive bottom line

Want to talk about torture? Let's remember the man who jumped to his death on 9-11? He was not alone. Nevertheless, it makes me furious every time that I see this picture.

Peter Wehner has a great post:

"You captured a high-value terrorist who, if you elicit information from him, might well provide you with details that are essential to preventing a future attack and mass death.

You are told enhanced interrogation techniques, if employed properly and under guidance, will work; and will probably save many thousands of innocent lives.

In that case many people would, I think, (reluctantly) give the green light to coercive techniques – which is exactly what Congress, including Democratic Members of Congress, did." (Morality and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques)

Wonder why there won't be any torture commission?

The public is against it. Also, the Dems don't want to get exposed as hypocrites for supporting all of the techniques back then.

P.S. By the way, did you watch Liz Cheney, the VP's daughter, on TV. She was outstanding:

Let the girls wear swimsuits and pretty dresses!

My mother and sister love beauty pageants. My wife likes them too.

During pageants, my mother and sister used to control TV and we were told to go out to eat.

My mother and sister took these pageants as seriously as we took the 7th game of the World Series or The Super Bowl.

In recent years, political correctness has invaded the beauty pageants. We expect these girls to talk about saving the world or some causes.

Forget it. It's a beauty pageant.

We are selecting a pretty young woman to serve as Miss USA, Miss Universe or Miss Venezuela.

What else are we doing?

This is about swim suits and long evening gowns.

Bring back the old fashioned beauty pageant. Drop all of these questions about saving the world.

The Dems got Arlen but do they really have 60 votes?

In the short run, it Specter's switch gives the Dems "the magical 60 votes" to run the US Senate.

In reality, Specter will be as much of a headache for Dems as he was for us.

Card check? No! How are heavy-union PA Dems going to react to having one of their own vote against Card Check?

Health care? Same as Card Check!

Beyond politics, it's amazing how Specter's cynicism compares with Lieberman's principled party switch in 2006.

Lieberman, the 2000 Dem VP candidate, did not buckle on his support for the Iraq War or Pres. Bush's war on terror.

He lost the primary to a well financed "Move on org" candidate.

Lieberman ran as an independent and won his seat back.

Don't expect that from Specter.

Why is Specter switching parties? Because he was trailing Pat Toomey, a younger conservative, by 20-30 points. (IBD: Self-Serving Switch)

Again, we had our differences with Specter over the years.

We loved how he went after Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings back in '91.

We did not like that he made Pres Obama's shameful Stimulus program possible.

Let's see how the political landscape looks in November 2010.

Let's see how things look after back to back years of federal deficits in excess of 10% of GDP!

P.S. By the way, the Dems now own Washington. The Republicans can not stop anything. This is their show now: The Liberal Hour!

Tuesday's show: A chat with Daniel about Venezuela

On Tuesday's show, we spoke with blogger Daniel from Venezuela.

We regret some of the technical problems in the first 10 minutes of the show. Please be patient and wait until we finally connect with Daniel.

Daniel's blog has been a wonderful vehicle to keep up with Venezuela News & Views!

We got an update on the situation, such as Peruvian exile for Rosales!

Click here for the show or go to the radio icon to the right.

Wonder how many New Yorkers were concerned about waterboarding terrorists yesterday?

On Tuesday, Air Force One and a couple of Air Force jets flew around New York City.

Who ordered it? We don't know. I am not going to speculate but it is a bit amazing that Pres Obama's security team did not tell him that one of the two jets was out for a ride!

What was the purpose of sending Air Force One to the New York skies?

Image? Image at $70,000 a minute? Image without giving Mayor Bloomberg early warning?

Beyond that, it caused an understandable panic in a city that still remembers the 9-11 tragedy.

According to news reports:

WHITE HOUSE CAUSES TERROR SCARE IN NYC...

WAS UPDATING FILE PHOTO OF AIR FORCE ONE...

Buildings evacuated in panic...

New Yorkers Run Through Streets...

Put City on Edge...

'We thought we were under attack again'...

Obviously, someone made a mistake here.

My question again: Wonder how many of those New Yorkers running in panic thought that waterboarding terrorists was an inhumane activity?

Perez Hilton at war with Miss California and TOTALLY silent about Pres Obama!

Back in 1996, or 13 years ago, BO was in favor of same sex marriage:

"In a survey conducted by the Windy City Times, Obama wrote, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages..."

Later, he switched to the "one man, one woman" arrangement.

Why doesn't Perez Hilton go after Pres Obama?

Why does he call Miss California a bad name? Why isn't he calling Pres BO a bad name too?

What's going on?

I love Andrew Breibart: We're here, we're queer and we're hypocrites!

Yes, I think that there is something wrong when people like Perez Hilton go after young women like Miss California.

Yes, it's called cowardice.

They go after Miss California and say nothing about the guy that cheerfully voted for!

P.S. Did you hear this:

"Miss California pageant organizers wanted her to remember her proper place — by renouncing her religious beliefs and apologizing..." (Captain Ed)

Pelosi is a disgrace

Like so many Dems, Nancy Pelosi is a poll reader.

In 2002, Pelosi did not object to anything. Today, she can't remember a thing!

Bret Stephens has a great column on Pelosi's convenient memory:

"The speaker and her partisans are the current beneficiaries of this politics of amnesia.

It won't be so forever.

And when the time comes to pay the price for their forgetfulness, it will not be small."

The Bush administration kept members of both parties incredibly informed about every feature of the anti-terror policies.

What's going on? Rep Pelosi doesn't have the courage to tell the Dem base that she knew, and strongly supported, everything that the Bush administration was doing.

Again, how can anybody vote for these fools?

POLITICO posted Pelosi playing defense on torture:

"Nancy Pelosi didn’t cry foul when the Bush administration briefed her on “enhanced interrogation” of terror suspects in 2002, but her team was locked and loaded to counter hypocrisy charges when the “torture” memos were released last week.

Many Republicans obliged, led by former CIA chief Porter Goss, who is accusing Democrats like Pelosi of “amnesia” for demanding investigations in 2009 after failing to raise objections seven years ago when she first learned of the legal basis for the program."

Not even Carlos Slim can save The NY Times!

The NY Times is in deep financial trouble.

It's only a matter of time before The NY Times joins Pontiac in the cemetery.

To be honest, I used to subscribe to The NY Times.

During my time in Mexico, I used to get The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. It was my way of getting both sides.

Unfortunately, something happened to The NY Times. Something really bad happened to The NY Times during the GW Bush years.

It turned into a left wing pamphlet.

Bill O'Reilly has a good post on The NY Times:

"Why read an ideologically crazed paper when you can acquire a variety of information on your PC?"

Why read hate from Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman?

The end is near. Let's hope that new investors can take The NY Times' good journalists and regroup under a more responsible banner.

Let's hope that the new managers will tell Rich, Dowd and Krugman to find some San Francisco newspaper to write for.

We need a good liberal newspaper. We don't need a left wing pamphlet!

BO's 100 days equals trillions of spending

Let's ask again: Didn't these people run against Pres Bush's deficits?

As we celebrate Pres BO's 100 days, we are astonished with the level of spending and the deficits that we will be financing.

Albert Hunt, a pro BO pundit, wrote this:

"The context is a looming policy and fiscal clash: Obama’s economic, energy, health-care and education initiatives are expensive, and the U.S. faces trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

The president can make a compelling case that these priorities are urgent and can help revive the economy.

Still, those initiatives, and a strong economy, may be unattainable without fiscal discipline elsewhere."

George Will reminds us of Carter:

"His budget calls for doubling the national debt in five years and almost tripling it in 10.

If the necessary government borrowing soon causes a surge in long-term interest rates, the result will be the 1970s redux—inflation and stagnation.

If so, the 44th president will be remembered not as the second iteration of the 32nd (Franklin Roosevelt) but of the 39th (Jimmy Carter)."

Another Carter presidency for the Democrats?

BO's 100 days have been:

1) style over substance, i.e. lots of teleprompter;

2) apologies all over but no Euro troops in Afghanistan; and,

3) budget deficits that will freak out the markets, i.e. 10% of GDP.

At some point, and it won't be long, the BO machine will hit some turbulence. Let's hope that the "yes we can screamers" brought their "Dramamine".

Does Pres BO have the spine to be president?

On FOX News Sunday, Mara Liasson (a quality reporter from NPR), and Brit Hume (FOX News) expressed concern about Pres BO standing up to the left.

Hume was great:

"Well, the base was not placated, and Obama -- boy, and it doesn't seem to take more than the slightest breeze from his left to get him to change his mind -- changed his mind.

This was weak."

Moral of the story: BO owes the left big time. BO owes the nomination to the left. He has to listen to them!

Moral of the story #2: BO has no history of standing up to anybody.

He sat in Rev Wright's church.

He stayed with Gov Blago despite obvious corruption. Can you believe that BO was one of Blago's strongest supporters as late as 2006? Didn't everybody in Illinois know that Blago was deep in corruption? Where was BO?

He buckled over Washington DC's schools for poor kids. He couldn't stand up to the unions! Juan Williams, an honest liberal, called it: Obama's sin against our kids!

Can you cite an example of BO standing up to anybody?

Michael Scheuer, the chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, is the author of "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq."

This is what he wrote about the memos and the witchhunt:

"Americans and their country's security will be the losers.

The Republicans do not have the votes to stop Obama, and the world will not be safer for America because the president abandons interrogations to please his party's left wing and the European pacifists it so admires.

Both are incorrigibly anti-American, oppose the use of force in America's defense and -- like Obama -- naively believe that the West's Islamist foes can be sweet-talked into a future alive with the sound of kumbaya.

So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen.

First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more.

And second, they will see Osama bin Laden's shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin."

Pres BO needs to tell the left to go fly a kite and stop being so hateful.

Byron York is right: In time of victory, why is the left so angry?

He needs to shut down the hateful left or he will own the next attack.

Wonder if Pres BO understands what that means?

It means that his presidency is over.

It means the Carter-ization of the Dems all over again. I think that most Dems know how that Carter episode turned out!

Fidel to BO: No hope and change here!

Let's hope that Pres BO learned a big lesson this month: Cuba won't change until the Castro brothers leave or are forced to leave.

The NY Post has a good editorial today:

"After Raul declared he was "willing" to discuss issues like human rights and political prisoners with Obama, Fidel responded with an essay on a state-controlled Web site that said, essentially, not so fast.

And, he predicted, Obama will wind up on the "path [to] sure failure, like all of his predecessors."

Thanks for nothing, in other words, for lifting restrictions on Cuban-Americans' ability to send their families cash.

That's more than Cuba has gotten from any US president since Dwight Eisenhower.

Which is just what Obama should have expected, after making those gestures without demanding anything of Castro.

He probably was heartened, though, by Fidel's having asked a group of bootlicking US House members what he could do to "help President Obama."

Fidel won this round.

Let's hope that Pres Obama will demand something the next time that he calls for a change in US policy.

Again, Cuba won't change until Castro brothers die or are removed by force.

What's the point of releasing those photos?

Can you imagine Pres Truman releasing photos of US planes bombing civilians in Japan or Germany?

I can't.

But Obama is no Truman and we will pay a huge price for that.

IBD has a great post today:

"We wonder, though, how we can defeat our enemies if we can't even bring ourselves to call them terrorists.

How we can win the global war on terror when we downgrade it rhetorically to merely an "overseas contingency operation"?

And how can we defeat them if we're on the verge of revealing dozens of photographs that purport to show U.S. military personnel mistreating captives in Afghanistan?"

It's great for us to play fair and by the rules. US soldiers have played by the rules. They have been a model of discipline and order in Iraq. They have fought in horrific conditions and shown immense professionalism.

What's the point of releasing some photos about the bad behavior of a few soldiers?

I don't get it.

I don't think that those guys headed to Afghanistan will get it either.

Pres BO needs to understand that he is asking US servicemen to fight a hard war in a difficult terrain.

Is it too much for these soldiers to see that their commander in chief cares about them?

The Cowboys pick Aggie QB Steve McGee

The Cowboys traded away their first round picks in 2009.

Therefore, no one expected a big name college player this year.

They did pick up Aggie Steve McGee in the 4th round.

McGee is not a threat to Tony Romo. He is probably going to be the #3 QB behind Romo and some veteran #2.

McGee did show lots of potential in college. He could be an adequate # 2 in a couple of years.

According to Scout.com:

"McGee is an athletic quarterback who has the skills to become a quality NFL starter.

He has prototypical size, excellent speed and good arm strength.

He throws with precision on intermediate routes, but lacks touch on deep throws.

He has good footwork and buys time in the pocket with his mobility.

He’s a threat to run with the ball and displays great toughness. He has to work on his mechanics."

Last, but not least, it never hurts to draft local players. McGee will help Mr. Jones sell some seats in that new stadium opening up this season.

BO's approval numbers are not extraordinary!

Despite the massive media campaign to make BO the most significant human being ever to walk on our earth, it may be a good idea to check his numbers.

It may surprise the "yes we can screamers" that Pres BO is doing no better than some recent presidents:

"George W. Bush scored 62 percent (despite Florida!);

Jimmy Carter 63 percent;

and Ronald Reagan 67 percent in the Gallup poll.

Among recent Presidents, the lowest-rated at this stage was Bill Clinton at 55 percent." (Power Line)

What do we call this?

We call it a presidential honeymoon.

In other words, most US citizens give their new president a chance to get their administration in place.

What happens after that?

Reality happens. Decisions are made. Foreign policy crisis happen. And so on!

This is why we agree with John of Power Line, a distinguished attorney and one of the nation's best bloggers:

"Three months into his first term, Ronald Reagan was popular because Americans saw that he had a bold and confident vision for America's future.

He remained popular for eight years and was re-elected in a landslide because his free-market and strong defense policies were resoundingly successful.

The same fate, I fear, is not in store for Barack Obama.

Or for America."

My money is that Obama will look a lot more like Carter than Reagan.

Keep an eye on inflation, stagnation and a foreign policy that promotes weakness.

P.S. Let me make a very slight correction to John's analysis. It's true that Reagan was popular over an 8 year period. However, he did have very low approval ratings in 1982-83 when he faced a horrible economic period.

Hillary to Iraq: Forget everything we said during the campaign!

Wonder how all of those anti-war "yes we can screamers" feel today?

What would have happened a year ago if candidates Obama and Clinton had said this:

"After the primaries.....

after we tell you what you want to hear about Iraq....

after we win this election.....we will implement the Bush-McCain plan in Iraq.......we will leave 30,000 troops in Iraq.....

we will send a Sec of State to Iraq to remind them that the US will never leave them alone...."

Why was Sec of State Clinton in Iraq this weekend?

The answer is that the Iraqi insurgents have been emboldened by "hope and change".

They think that dramatic bombings will break Pres Obama's spine. They think that they can drive us out just like they drove Spain out in the spring of 2004!

Terrorists are not impressed with "enlightened" Western leaders. Not at all. They see those kind of leaders as wimpy and easy to push around. Again, can you say PM Rod-Zapatero of Spain?

It's time for Pres Obama to stop talking about withdrawal and US past mistakes.

It's time to start talking about victory in the war on terror.

Waterboarding 3 terrorists or a big hole in LA?

We trust that Pres BO never has to make the kind of post 9-11 decisions that Pres Bush had to make.

Check out: The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth" by Marc Thiessen.

We uncovered information about several plots, including one against LA.

Again, let's hope that Pres BO does not face a crisis like 9-11.

If he does, let's pray that he will defend the US rather than make the ACLU happy.

Let the hearings begin! Let's start with what Pelosi knew!

Frankly, I don't want a witch hunt or something called a "truth commission". It will divide the country, makes us vulnerable to another attack, break CIA morale, poison the water in Washington and never stop.

It will also hurt Pres Obama. What Obama lawyer is going to give him an opinion knowing that a future Republican president could charge him with war crimes?

Nevertheless, it is tempting to teach these Dems a lessons.

The "spineless Dems" were for torture and for the Iraq War when it was popular to do so.

This is the biggest collection of political cowards ever.

We understand that Dems were all for doing "whatever" was necessary to defend the country.

How can anyone vote for these convenient political cowards? I guess that meaningless "hope and change" can turn a lot of rational people into rather irrational "yes we can screamers".

So let's call their bluff.

Let's have hearings. Let's put everything on the table. Let's show for once and for all that this is the biggest collection of fools ever to make up a Congress.

Check out Porter Goss and the Democrats:

"Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned.

It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

– The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

– We understood what the CIA was doing.

– We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

– We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

– On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues.

They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding.

And for those who now reveal filed “memorandums for the record” suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately — to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president’s national security adviser — and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted.

And shifted they have."

Again, this is the same crowd that ran to the microphones in March 2003 to express their support for the Iraq War.

This is the same crowd that said in 2006: "Vote for us and we will end the war".

Some of you did and they didn't have the guts to do anything.

Spineless jerks. That's all that they are.

After Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller are put under oath, let's have Pres Clinton and CIA Director Panetta explain the "rendition" jails that we kept overseas for captured terrorists.

Don't get me wrong. I support rendition jails for terrorists. What I don't like is spineless Dems who engage in massive hypocrisy.

P.S. Between going back and forth on investigating Bush officials and promoting unprecedented deficits, let's hope that someone at The White House is staying up to date on the situation in Pakistan.

They can start by reading Suddenly By Richard Fernandez.

Pres BO's new view of the world is going to be tested big time in Pakistan. Let's hope that this White House is ready because it will get very ugly in Pakistan.

Remembering Harry Nillson, one of my favorite songwriters!

I was reminded this week that Harry Nillson died 15 years ago. I guess that time flies.

As I recall, Nillson recorded "One" for Three Dog Night. After that, he released "Everybody's talkin", the soundtrack of The Point and "Without you", perhaps his biggest top 40 hit.

He was very creative.

My favorite song was "I guess the lord must be in New York City":

"I say goodbye to all my sorrows
And by tomorrow I'll be on my way
I guess the lord must be in New York City

I'm so tired of getting nowhere
Seein' my prayers going unanswered
I guess the lord must be in New York City

Well here I am Lord
Knocking on your back door
Ain't it wonderful to be
Where I've always wanted to be
For the first time I'll be free
In New York City

I say goodbye to all my sorrows
And by tomorrow I'll be on my way
I guess the lord must be in New York City

I'm so tired of getting nowhere
Seein' my prayers going unanswered
I guess the lord must be in New York City

Well here I am Lord
Knocking on your back door
Ain't it wonderful to be
Where I've always wanted to be
For the first time I'll be free
In New York City"

John and Paul sing about growing up in Liverpool!

John Lennon & Paul McCartney were an amazing songwriting team. They were the creative force that made The Beatles the greatest pop group of our generation.

They wrote some wonderful lyrics and beautiful melodies.

Today, we remember "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields forever", two songs about growing up in Liverpool.

They were released as the A and B-sides of a great single.

"Strawberry Fields Forever" was about Lennon's youth:

"Strawberry Field was a Salvation Army children's home in Woolton, a suburb of Liverpool, England."

John played at Strawberry Field when he was a little boy.

According to Rolling Stone, Strawberry Fields Forever is one of the top 500 songs of the rock era. In fact, it was # 76:

"Lennon often considered "Strawberry Fields Forever" his greatest accomplishment with the Beatles.

The song, a surreal kaleidoscope of sound, was the first track recorded for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (although it was subsequently released as a single instead).

The lyrics are a nostalgic look at Lennon's Liverpool childhood and an expression of his own pride.

Said Lennon, "The second line goes, 'No one I think is in my tree.'

Well, what I was trying to say in that line is, 'Nobody seems to be as hip as me, therefore I must be crazy or a genius.' "

"Penny Lane" was Paul doing the lead vocals.

The song is about a street in Liverpool:

"The song's title is derived from the name of a street in the band's hometown, Liverpool.

The area that surrounds its junction with Smithdown Road is also commonly called Penny Lane.

Locally the term "Penny Lane" was the name given to Allerton Road and Smithdown Road and its busy shopping area.

Penny Lane is named after James Penny, an 18th century slave trader."

I have loved the special trumpet on the background:

Dear Pres BO: Who is going to pay for this?

In 100 days, Pres BO has spent more money than any of his predecessors. This is from Stephen Clark:

"During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.

"You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute."

This is a spending spree.

It's a huge expansion of government.

Let's ask again: How can you double an organization size in 90 days without unintended consequences.

I don't like it!

Michael Young is one of the best clutch hitters in baseball

We've loved watching Michael Young since he came up with the Rangers in 2001.

We've loved his defense and those 200-hit seasons.

We've loved those two All Star game winning RBIs.

This week, Michael Young hit three 9th inning homeruns.

First, he hit a bottom of the 9th HR to beat KC.

Second, he ties the game with another 9th inning HR in Toronto.

Third, he hit a 2-run homer to put Texas ahead.

3 Ninth-inning homers in a week.

I have never seen that before.

Over the years, I've seen great clutch hitters like Brooks Robinson, Reggie Jackson and Derek Jeter. Let me add Michael Young to that list of great hitters.

We love Michael Young around here.