Enjoy:

Not convinced that Zack Galifianakis is hilarious? Watch this:

An excerpt:

Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities.

Rather than tackle the drivers of health inflation, the legislation chases the ever-increasing premiums with huge new subsidies. Already, Washington has no idea how to pay for the unfunded promises in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- and creating this new entitlement would accelerate our path to fiscal ruin. When you strip away the double-counting, expose the hidden costs that must be funded and look at the price tag when the legislation is fully implemented, the claims of deficit reduction are as hollow as claims of cost containment.

This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules. The CBO said last July that "requiring employers to offer health insurance, or pay a fee if they do not, is likely to reduce employment." The mix of mandates and higher costs will drive Americans into government exchanges, with an ever-enlarging number reliant upon taxpayer subsidies for their care. The architecture is designed to give the government greater control over what kind of insurance is available, how much health care is enough and which treatments are worth paying for.

Ryan closes out the column with this:

If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology.

Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy.

Read the entire Post piece here, and PLEASE send it along to those who are on the fence in regards to their support for Obamacare.

Here's Rep. Ryan at the president's umpteenth summit last month, handling his health care business like a pro:

Mark Steyn discussing the disastrous results of "multiculturalism" in Europe:

The time for talk is over.

So proclaimed the most talkative president in modern memory. I can't remember when Barack Obama said that. Maybe it was during the first "final showdown" on health care. Or maybe it was the third. The fifth? It's so hard to tell when pretty much every week since the dawn of the Mesozoic Era, Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid has proclaimed that it is now Go Time for health-care reform.

So you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical about the possibility that the health-care reform debate is about to come to an end.

That's the tenor of syndicated columnist and best-selling author Jonah Godlberg's latest effort.  He isn't buying the Obama-Pelosi-Reid line that there is no time to pass a bill that WILL NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 2013...conviently, after the next presidential election.

Hmmm.  I wonder why that might be?

This latest gambit is of a piece with the White House's demonization of the health-insurance industry. I have no love for that industry myself, but let's get some perspective. As of August, the health-insurance industry ranked 86th in terms of profit margins -- behind anemic industries such as book publishing (38th) specialty eateries (71st) and home furnishing stores (84th), according to data compiled by Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute.

Insurance companies account for less than 5 percent of American health-care spending -- less than hospitals (31 percent), doctors (21 percent) and medicine (10 percent). But because health-insurance companies are unpopular, Democrats are beating up on them, even though if Democrats are serious about containing costs, the cuts will have to come from those other slices of the pie.

But enough with the substance.

Goldberg continues:

The health-care debate ceased being about substance a long, long time ago. Fair or not, the Democrats' plan is unpopular, period. There is simply nothing Obama can say that will change that fact before Democrats vote for it. That hasn't stopped him from talking out of every side of his mouth. But outside the Obama bunker, no serious pollster, pundit or pol in Washington disputes this basic point: Obama cannot take the stink off this thing.

The brand of health care "reform" currently being pursued by the most powerful people in our nation's government is unpopular, ineffective, and will spell economic ruin for this nation for a generation (or more).

But it might work for us...

I think what is most shockingly refreshing about this speech is the candid, frank way a President of the United States used to be able to speak.

Enjoy:

To put the importance of this speech in to some proper, historical perspective, here is Newt Gingrich's presentation at the American Enterprise Institute.

Here are three of the ten:

1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions. The U.S. should push other concerned countries to enforce targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime and its internal security organs; ban all foreign investment, loans and credits, subsidized trade, and refined petroleum exports to Iran; and deny visas to its officials.

2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions. Both houses of Congress voted by large bipartisan majorities to impose sanctions against firms that export refined petroleum products to Iran. Yet the White House is dragging its feet, arguing such sanctions will impede diplomatic efforts at the U.N., even though the U.N. is unlikely to approve crippling sanctions.

3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses. Such a campaign should document the abuses and aid victims, step up broadcasting and support for independent Iranian broadcasters outside the country to expose corruption of officials and the regime's aid to terrorists, and educate Iranians about genuine representative democracy.

My favorite director is Alfred Hitchcock.  No one told a story on the silver screen quite like "old Hitch."  I especially love Vertigo, North By Northwest, and Notorious.  Hitchcock mastered the psychological thriller, loved setting his stories amidst grandiose backdrops and landscapes, always paid great attention to detail, and usually crafted tales about characters who get caught up in things beyond their control.

Martin Scorsese is a legendary director in his own right, and although I am not very fond of his obsession with making ultra-violent films, his latest effort Shutter Island, is an effective homage to the greatness of Hitchcock.

As your eyes could tell you from the trailer, Leonardo DiCaprio stars in Shutter Island and does a fantastic job.

It's 1954 (the year Hitch's classic Rear Window was released), and U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leo) has been called to investigate the disappearance of an inmate at an island mental hospital for the criminally insane called Ashecliff off the coast of Massachusetts.  Teddy's got his new partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) along for the investigation, but upon arrival, it becomes apparent to the characters (and audience) that something is not quite right on Shutter Island.

The prison guards are abnormally fidgety, the Marshals are both asked to turn over their firearms (something no federal agent typically has to do), and there is absolutely no trace of the woman who allegedly escaped.  The man running things on Shutter Island is Dr. John Cawley, played exquisitely by Academy Award winner Ben Kingsley, who seems to be thoroughly disinterested in actually helping Teddy and Chuck piece the clues together.

Due to forces beyond their control (a hurricane-like storm that hits the island), the two detectives are stranded overnight and we begin to learn more about Teddy's back-story and what really brought him to the island.

Before becoming a Marshal, Teddy was a soldier in WWII and was personally there for the liberation of the concentration camp at Dachau.  He is plagued by the senseless death and destruction he witnessed in Europe.  To compound his own emotional health issues, Teddy is a grieving widower.  His wife, he claims, was killed in a fire that ravaged the apartment building the two of them had lived in back in Boston.

We learn Teddy requested the assignment to Shutter Island because he believes two key things:  First, that the man who started the fire that killed his wife is imprisoned somewhere on the island.  And second, that Nazi-like medical and psychological tests are being conducted on the criminally insane housed there.  He wants to both confront the killer of his beloved deceased, and gather evidence against the doctors he believes are torturing the patients.

Twists and turns in the story abound from there.

I don't want to give away much more about the plot of Shutter Island.  It's a compelling script with superb acting performances turned in by almost every major and minor character.  The music was disturbing and perfectly set the mood for the entire film (another Hitchcock special).  The psychological twists and turns absolutely keep you on your toes, and as soon as the credits role you will likely feel compelled to start your own group therapy session in hopes of figuring out what exactly just happened over the previous two hours and seventeen minutes.

Shutter Island is rated R for language and intense scenes of death (mostly from shots of concentration camp victims).  Do not take your grandma to this movie.

While not an "instant classic" or "must see", if you like great acting, Hitchcock-like storytelling and maintaining an uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach for more than two hours, go see Shutter Island (and let me know what you thought of it if you already have).

Here is Massa, in his own words, explaining the bizarre pressure the current administration (namely, Rahm Emmanuel) has been putting on him.

Last fall, Washington, D.C., schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee laid off 229 teachers. Here's what was unusual about that: She chose who would stay and who would go based on the competence of the teachers.

That's a radical departure for public education. Most schools across the country make personnel decisions largely or entirely based on seniority. Last in, first out. Illinois law requires that teacher layoffs be based on seniority unless a school district and its local union negotiate different rules. Result: seniority is the deciding factor everywhere, according to the Illinois State Board of Education. So law and custom protect older teachers — whether they're good teachers or bad teachers.

What a shock to learn that the Peoples' Republic of Illinois has such a backwards, ineffective system for hiring and firing teachers!

Many cash-strapped Illinois school districts face the prospect of layoffs in the coming months. Unless outdated rules are scrapped, the schools will have to fire some of their best teachers because they happen to be younger teachers.

They also will have to fire more teachers. Younger teachers have lower salaries, so when schools operate strictly on seniority, they have to let more teachers go to achieve a certain dollar savings.

Yes, there is value in experience. But the National Council on Teacher Quality reports that "teachers in their third year of teaching are generally about as effective as long-tenured teachers."

Seniority can be considered, but along with such factors as competence, drive, classroom performance and willingness to learn new skills. Younger teachers, for instance, may be more computer-savvy and thus more capable of teaching the tech skills children need to succeed.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that almost everyone has a teacher who impacted their life in a positive way.  We want to honor teachers, and we want the best possible teachers in our school systems.  But tax dollars aren't charity to be doled out based on a general feeling of good will towards people who enter the teaching profession.  People must earn those dollars, same as any other job.

And it is the constitutional duty of those running these bloated bureacracies at the state and federal level to do everything in their power to see that the best possible people are hired in the most efficient way.

All governments have to find ways to lure and keep the best and brightest in their work force. Where is that more important than in the classroom?

School vouchers, anyone?  Real change requires real change.   Enough talk.  If we're serious about education, then let's put our votes where our mouths are and let our elected officials know that changes like the ones the Tribune is talking about matter to us.

As an aspiring writer and commentator, I spend a great deal of time reading the books and articles and speeches of the people I feel effectively communicate the ideas I believe in better than anyone else.

Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and Fox News Channel is one of those people.

Every night of the week, at roughly 6:40 p.m. (Eastern Time), Dr. Krauthammer is a member of the "All-Star Panel" on Special Report With Brett Baier.  (You should be watching or DVR-ing this every day).  And each Friday, his nationally syndicated column is read in newspapers all across the country.

Today he treated his reading audience to this gem on the current state of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health care plan:

After 34 speeches, three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health care reform.

The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House "summit" with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans' way.

Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of Obama's health care bill.

The Health Care Summit last week was a dog-and-pony show, meant to portray the Republicans as obstructionists and big old meanies.  But the president was confronted by the likes of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), and the fact-based disagreements conservatives have with Obama's brand of "reform."  Republicans DO have ideas, and many key members of the GOP on the state and national level have been promoting them all year.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections -- contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments) they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

And now, in what can only be described as the most brilliant summation of the American peoples' opposition to Obamacare, please enjoy the wit and wisdom of Charles Krauthammer in its rarest of forms:

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed -- say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry's feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.

Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.

That's it, folks.  Everything the Left promises sounds nice on an individual level, which is how they present their collectivist policies.  The problem is, of course, that all of their policies are implemented on a national level and cannot possibly succeed.  This is the heart of the debate between Right and Left: can the few rule, and provide for, the many?  Can "experts" in Washington "control" the expenses and costs of 300 million-plus liberty-loving Americans?

The good intentions of liberals are heart-warming and bone-chilling, all at the same time.

Chuck closes out his devastatingly informative column with the following:

The time for debate is over, declared the nation's seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington's wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of "budget reconciliation." The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.