The Office of the President is pleased to announce that the unemployment rate in America has been reduced to 0%.

Deciding that anyone who is out of work, regardless of the length of time, will no longer be deemed a part of the work force. As a result, the work force now consists of only those people who are at work – everyone else will be disregarded. Therefore the Administration, the Spokesman (oops – make that Spokesperson), announced that it has achieved the unattainable:

100% employment, 0% unemployment.

The 7.5% (+/-) unemployment rate when the prior President left office is a thing of the past. By using the money from the stimulus bill, the cash for clunkers program, etc. (not to mention a little creative accounting) the problem of unemployment has been solved, forever. The President’s office announced that it was extremely gratified that the American people have realized that the President’s policies had finally been recognized as working. “This should certainly help with the reelection campaign, and anyone who doesn’t recognize the brilliancy of the present administration is unpatriotic.” the President’s Spokeswoman (oops– make that Spokesperson) announced.

Someone said there is a solution to every problem. The problem lies in finding it, — well, the President found it. Never in American history has this level of unemployment been reached.

___________________________________________________________________________

The national “I-Got-A-Bridge I Want to Sell You”  Award for 2010 (so far) has been awarded to President Obama, ex-President Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanual and the rest of the senior White House Staff (excluding chefs.) The Award goes, each year to those who put out the most gullible news story, which, asks the public to believe it is true. In effect, the award goes to those who say “if you believe this story, I have a bridge I want to sell you.”

In a news conference on Thursday, May 27, President Obama stated that the “offical” story would be released on May 28th as to the offer to Rep. Sestak to withdraw from the Democratic Senatorial Primary against Sen. Specter. The Official story is that Emanual contacted Clinton who contacted Sestak and offered him a job as an unpaid  member of a Presidential Advisory Panel if he would not pursue his Senatorial dreams by running against good old Arlen S. Of course, Sestak, I think, was inelligible for the job since he already was on the federal payroll as a Representative, and the job didn’t pay any money anyhow, but that’s a small detail. In any event, it hardly seems credible that such would be offered to induce someone to withdraw from a Senate race.

No one thought to ask the President on May 27th what the unofficial story was, but again a small detail.

One can only speculate as to why it took the White House so long to respond with an official story, but that’s another  small detail, but I digress.

eGrumps confesses he does not know the truth of the story, but frankly, it does not pass the smell test. Actually, in eGrumps humble official opinion, the White House  official version is not credible.  So – the award of the I Got a Bridge I Want to Sell You for 2010 (so far) goes to the above mentioned recipients on the very logical theory, that if you believe that story, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you – cheap.

But, hard as it is to believe, eGrumps could be wrong.

President Obama will not attend the ceremonies at the Tomb of the Unknowns on Memorial Day, 2010. He will be in Chicago. V-P Biden will attend. On a few occasions, other Presidents have sent others to participate and to lay a wreath on the tomb.

IMO – That does not justify President Obama’s absence.

________________________________________________________________

Now that someone in Washington has finally read the Arizona law and found it bans racial profiling, a new approach has been advanced to show the heinous nature of the law: it has the potential to lead to racial profiling.

Hey Guys and Gals in Washington DC – I’ve got news for you – EVERY CRIMINAL LAW HAS THE POTENTIAL TO LEAD TO RACIAL PROFILING. For example – traffic laws – like speed limit laws – can lead to racial profiling in that the police might, just might, have a tendency to stop cars being driven by a certain minority group, but not by whites. So – lets do away with all criminal laws on that basis – they have a potential to lead to racial profiling – that’ll simplify our lives, not to mention reducing the size of our police forces, thus saving lots of taxpayer dollars.

Makes sense to me.

____________________________________________________________________

After considering various options for the trial of the alleged terrorist (the “Underwear  Bomber”) the DOJ decided to indite him on indecent exposure. Citing the difficulties in getting a conviction for acts of terrorism, attempted murder, and bad-conduct on an airplane, career political (and senior) attorneys from the Department of Justice , after conferring with The President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State and the head of the Department of Homeland Security (“Security Czar”), not to mention all four members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Head of the CIA, the Head of the FBI, and the Terrorism Unit of the Detroit Police Department – and yours truly, eGrumps  - decided that the only sure way to get a conviction was to drop all charges except Indecent Exposure. All agreed, except for eGrumps, who was  the lone dissenting voice.

It was felt this would be a slam-dunk conviction because of the way he tried to remove, and was somewhat successful,  his trousers while on a public conveyance.  A conviction on the other charges was “iffy.” A spokesperson said “America is a land of true justice and compassion, civil liberties, and all-around good people, so a conviction on this narrow ground would show the efficacy of our legal system and the forgiveness of the American people. Besides, it was almost certain that a Release could be gotten for the unprovoked actions of a fellow passenger in attacking the Underwear Bomber and protect the USA from any future liability for damages. The savings alone could be well worth a trial on this legal theory.”

When asked as to the severity of the sentence the Underwear Bomber would receive, the spokesman said he thought the Federal Criminal Code provided a maximum sentence of six months, with time off for good behavior.  ”After all, it’s not like he blew up the plane,” the spokesman said.

“This should put the fear of God (oops, Allah) into any would be terrorists. Our prisons are no trip to the beach, you know. No color television, no private cells, no computer access to email, Facebook or Twitter, no cell phones, no iPods, no access to almost anything worth while these days. This will be really rough on him.” he stressed.

The official report from the Committee stressed that this should act as a suitable deterrent, and serve as a lesson to the Underwear Bomber and his friends.  Justice has been served.

President Obama reviewed all evidence from his golf cart in Hawaii and fully concurred with this result. After all, he stated, this was an “Isolated Instance.” We must build bridges to earn the friendship of our terrorist friends, and it is up to us to take the first step. The United Nations should be proud, and I want to pledge $5,000,000,000 from the United States to investigate the root cause of terrorism, poverty, and what can be done to solve this problem.

__________________________________________________________

On November 6, 2009, Major Hassan, shouting “Allahu Akabar” opened fire with one or more weapons killing 13 and wounding about 35 more. There is no question Major Nasan was the shooter. He was gunned down in the act while holding at least one weapon in his hand.

Why is he an “alleged gunman.” He was the shooter. There is no factual argument about it.

So why does President Obama say “There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy…That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman…” Why do so many others use the word “alleged.” His motives may be questioned, (Maybe he grew up as an abused youth with a drunken father, and hence his actions excused under some modern “civilized” views) (Maybe he was legally insane when he did the shooting)(Maybe he was…..(you can make that up any way you want to))  Maybe he has legal defenses as to whether or not he was a murderer. Personally, I doubt that he has any legal defenses, but that has nothing to do whether he was the gunman.

HE WAS NOT AN ALLEGED GUNMAN. HE WAS THE GUNMAN, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. So why is he called an alleged gunman? Damned if I know.

Has Political Correctness gone so far that we cannot say the truth – he was the gunman. Facts are facts.

__________________________________________________________________________