As a percentage of GDP, this pork-laden exercise in mono-partisanship will bring the US Deficit to at least 13.5% of the nation's GDP -- more than doubling the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP at any point in living memory!

Congratulations, Democrats, for bringing the Era of Fiscal Irresponsibility to an entirely new level heretofore unseen in our nation's history -- and after less than one month of controlling the legislative and executive branches!

H/T Ace, Gateway Pundit Power Line

Posted by: Greg at 07:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's see.

One out because he's corrupt (Richardson).

One out because he's a tax cheat (Daschle).

One disgraced and discredited because he's a tax cheat (Geithner).

One disgraced and discredited because he supported the Marc Rich pardon and pardons for terrorists (Holder).

Yeah, Obama and his crew sure can vet those Cabinet picks.

And once they found one with some actual principles, he withdraws because he can't go along with the bad policies and corruption of the Obama Administration.

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination to be President Obama's commerce secretary on Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" over issues like the economic stimulus package and the census.

"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg of New Hampshire said in a written statement.

Republicans have been largely unified in their opposition to an economic stimulus bill that now totals $789 billion. They say it is full of government waste and won't create enough jobs to turn the economy around.

And in the past week, the GOP has stoked controversy over Obama's plan to share oversight of next year's census, which is carried out by the Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department -- though Gregg said that was only a "slight" factor in his decision to withdraw.

I applaud Judd Gregg, who I don't always agree with when he goes maverick but who I certainly respect. He recognizes that his independence would be gone the minute he was confirmed.

Barry Hussein claims he is surprised by Gregg's move. Could it be due to the fact that the Senator has shown that there is, indeed, honest politicians out there -- something that an Illinois Democrat like will have never encountered in the course of his meteoric rise from obscurity to mediocrity in the highest office in the land.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, Barry Hussein is in the (White) House, so anyone in opposition to his plans and programs is engaged in acts of treason and domestic terrorism, according to “liberal” radio host Mike Malloy.

"They're worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for GodÂ’s sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn't that clear? Rush Limbaugh is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. He's a bigger threat than anybody that the CIA can invent. He's a bigger threat than any terrorist that ever leveled its sights against the United States, Limbaugh is, so why isn't he arrested and sentenced for treason?"

Get that, folks – dissent is now domestic terrorism and treason. Seeking to undermine the unwise and irresponsible policies of a president with a D after his name makes one worse than Osama bin Laden. And to think that for the last eight years I heard that speaking ill of our nation’s leaders and trying to thwart their policies – up to and including publishing classified information that materially aided the enemy in the field – was more patriotic than giving support to the nation in time of war.

So get ready, folks. The day is coming when the First Amendment will be excised from the Bill of Rights as incompatible with Obamism – and speaking words which oppose the plans of the libtelligentsia for the United States will constitute “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Odd, isn’t it, that this is directly contrary to the views of the men who wrote Article III, Section 3 in such a manner as to preclude making the holding and expression of dissenting opinions on policy matters the cause of a prosecution for treason.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Obama was not really serious about ending American dependence on foreign sources of oil.

A day after his Interior secretary signaled plans for a cautious approach to oil and natural gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he's "holding out for a more comprehensive strategy" for U.S. energy development before approving offshore drilling along the East Coast.

In a meeting with reporters for The Virginian-Pilot and 15 other newspapers, Obama touched on a wide range of topics, from drilling to military strategy and efforts to revive the economy.

On drilling, he said it would be short-sighted to rely on offshore oil and gas development to solve the nation's energy problems or stimulate the flagging U.S. economy. Offshore resources are "not going to come online quickly enough," he asserted.

I know no one who argues that the only thing to do is drill offshore – or that we should rely on drilling for oil alone. But there is no legitimate reason for not tapping those reserves if we are to end the dependence on foreign oil that has caused such problems. Unless, of course, one is sold out to the far left of the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

If this precedent in Iowa is allowed to stand and expand, it might be.

An Iowa State trooper who was investigated after it was shown that he forwarded an e-mail showing mug shots of people wearing Obama t-shirts has been suspended for 30 days.

Sgt. Rodney Hicok was at home and off-duty when he forwarded the e-mails, said an official with the Iowa Department of Public Safety Bureau and Professional Standards.

The e-mail made disparaging remarks about 15 people in the photos and referred to Obama as having "quite a fan base."

Hicok was not making a racial statement, the official said, but, rather, a political statement.

Hicock was also forced to make an apology for what the state acknowledges was his private, off-duty political speech regarding the President of the United States and his supporters.

Now I initially was not disturbed by this decision. After all, I wondered if he might have obtained the mug shots using his official position. Had that been the case, some punishment might have been appropriate.

But I did a little further digging (actually, I clicked the link at the end of the story that took me to the original story about the investigation). Look where he obtained the mug shots in question, and then tell me that this email was in any way a legitimate basis for any sort of punishment.

The e-mail has a photo that was originally posted on TheSmokingGun.com, according to the ISP, and it was forwarded by Hicok to colleagues inside and outside the department.

No misconduct there – the images in question came from a website that posts documents in the public domain. On what basis, therefore, is punishment being meted out against this trooper? Political speech is, by any standard, fully protected by the First Amendment – even if you are a police officer and even if the target you lampoon is the President and his supporters.

Unless, of course, the “Era of Hope’N’Change” includes the contraction and retraction of our civil liberties...

H/T Gateway Pundit, Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.

Soldiers are not cops. Marines are not cops. Sailors are not cops. Airmen are not cops.

Hopefully no one is surprised by those statements. After all, we know that they are fighting men and women.

But the decision by our inept new president to treat terrorists as criminals rather than enemies may mean that all of those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay may need to be released – because if they are going to get civilian trials with all the protections accorded the Americans arrested for crimes in this country, then all evidence and confessions obtained heretofore will have to be thrown out. Why? Because the terrorists taken on the field of battle were not read their Miranda rights by the fighting men who captured them and were not accorded rights given criminal suspects under the Bill of Rights and relevant Supreme Court interpretations thereof.

Accused in a 2002 grenade blast that wounded two U.S. soldiers near an Afghan market, Mohammed Jawad was sent as a youth to Guantanamo Bay. Now, under orders by President Obama, he could one day be among detainees whose fate is finally decided by a U.S. court.

But in a potential problem, Pentagon officials note that most of the evidence against Jawad comes from his own admissions. And neither he nor any other detainee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was ever told about their rights against self-incrimination under U.S. law.

The Miranda warning, a fixture of American jurisprudence and staple of television cop shows, may also be one of a series of constructional hurdles standing between Obama's order to close the island prison and court trials on the mainland.

A procession of similar challenges -- secret evidence, information from foreign spy services and coerced statements -- also could spell trouble for prosecutors.

All of these problems illustrate the larger difficulty that lies ahead as the nation moves from the "law of war" orientation used by the Bush administration in dealing with detainees to the civilian legal approach preferred by Obama.

Yep, Barry Hussein has really screwed the pooch on this one. By muddying the distinction between war and criminal justice, he has virtually guaranteed that the enemy will be released to return to the field of battle where he can kill more American soldiers – and civilians.

Are there aspects of the Bush policies on the detainees that reasonable people can quibble over? Yeah, I suppose there are. But the one thing that sensible folks cannot dispute is that he – like FDR during WWII – recognized that fighting a war is very different from fighting crime, and that dealing with the enemy is very different from dealing with lawbreakers. Barack Obama does not understand that – and having campaigned on a promise to undo the Bush policies and treat terrorism as an exercise in criminal justice rather than national defense, he will be hard pressed to step back from his absurd plans. Even if that means that America will be objectively less safe from terrorism than it was during the Bush years.

Andrew McCarthy offers a fantastic analysis of the other flaws of ObamaÂ’s proposed solution to the problem of Gitmo in a fine article in National Review.

UPDATE: Allahpundit points to this little gem from Sarah Palin back during the campaign.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

Turns out she hit it right on the head. And it only took the LA Times five months to show that her concerns were dead on.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

Once again, dissent is not patriotic in the Era of Hope'N'Change.

After all, Alec Baldwin has done so much more on behalf of America than John McCain.

To John McCain. You need to keep quiet, John McCain. You lost. . . . You gotta shut up, John McCain.

Yep, that's right -- a bona fide war hero who has spent his entire adult life in service to the United States had better shut up because some punk actor tells him to -- simply because the war hero doesn't support the policies of the current administration.

Of course, maybe John McCain should be grateful that Baldwin didn't call for a lynch mob to drag him out of his home as Baldwin did in the case of Congressman Henry Hyde.

Posted by: Greg at 05:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Because after all, dissent is no longer patriotic in the Era of Hope'N'Change.

Now that America has a liberal President, it is apparently no longer acceptable for a private citizen to express disagreement with the White House in Keith OlbermannÂ’s world. On ThursdayÂ’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Olbermann delivered his latest "Special Comment" rant, this time calling for former Vice President Cheney to "leave this country," and made a suggestion that Cheney, who recently criticized President ObamaÂ’s plans for handling counterterrorism, should somehow be "made to desist" from such criticism. Olbermann: "You, Mr. Cheney, you terrified more Americans than did any terrorist in the last seven years, and now it is time for you to desist, or to be made to desist."

The Countdown host, who never showed any concern that his tirades against the Bush administration would "undermine" the war on terrorism, accused Cheney of "trying to sabotage" Obama’s "efforts against terrorism," and made a number of vulgar implications in attacking Cheney – including twice pronouncing the former Vice President’s first name with emphasis as if to call him by a vulgar word; saying that he would tell Cheney to "shove it"; and asking which "orifice" Cheney was pulling numbers from about the recidivism rate of former Guantanamo detainees.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

After several plugs, during which he claimed that "his [CheneyÂ’s] policies contributed to the worst attack ever on American soil," and said he would tell Cheney to "shove it," Olbermann began his "Special Comment":

Flatly, it may be time for Mr. Cheney to leave this country. The partisanship, divisiveness, and naiviete to which he ascribed every single criticism of his and President BushÂ’s delusional policies of the last eight years have now roared forth in a destructive and uninformed diatribe from Mr. Cheney that can only serve to undermine the nationÂ’s new President, undermine the nationÂ’s effort to thwart terrorism and undermine the nation itself.

The MSNBC host soon read a quote from CheneyÂ’s interview remarking that "When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry." Olbermann shot back: "More concern, Mr. Cheney? What delusion of grandeur makes you think you have the right to say anything like that?"

Where shall we begin dealing with the words of this loud-mouth buffoon who claimed to be a patriot while actively seeking to tear down the previous occupant of the Oval Office in language significantly less respectful that those used by the former vice president?

1) What "delusion of grandeur" makes Cheney think he has the right to say what he said? Well, aside from having some three decades more experience in the field of national security than Mr. Obama does (which certainly qualifies Dick Cheney as more of an expert on such matters than either Obama or Olbermann), I suppose it might be this:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That settles the question of what Dick Cheney thinks gives him the right to speak his mind freely in this country, wouldn't you agree? And furthermore, the notion that Dick Cheney should be "made to desist" from making such comments is advocacy of the wholesale violation of his civil liberties, you friggin' brownshirt. Clearly YOU are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than you are about the rights of Americans -- making you objectively pro-terrorist, Keith.

2) "Flatly, it may be time for Mr. Cheney to leave this country." What's that, Keith? Good God! That isn't even "America: Love it or leave it." It is "America: Support Obama or get out." What next, Ubermoron? Forced deportation? Or internment in reeducation camps like those found in Red China during the Cultural Revolution for those of us who fail to support Dear Leader Hope'N'Change?

3) Weren't you one of the folks who argued throughout the last administration that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"? Why, then, do you seek to suppress speech that said standard shows to be objectively more patriotic than your felating of the current regime? Could it be that you rally believe that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism only when the president has an R after his name"?

You know, we hear a lot about the "Fairness Doctrine" and "hate speech in media". Seems to me that any hearings on talk radio should be expanded to include the cable propaganda outlets like MSNBC -- with Keith Olbermann as the prime example of what hte speech in media really looks like.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 6 kb.

Once again, a rich liberal insists that the government should force him to pay more taxes.

IÂ’m the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, IÂ’m very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and IÂ’d like to offer a suggestion. President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.

Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans.

Of course, there is a flaw in Reed HastingsÂ’ logic. As we well know, increased taxes lower the amount of revenue received. Also, experience shows us that changing the way in which such compensation packages are taxed simply results in changes in how that compensation is received to legally avoid the taxes.

But if Hastings really feels that he isnÂ’t paying enough, there is an option available to him. Since 1843 there has been a fund established under the US Treasury department for individuals to patriotically give more to the US government. All Hastings really needs to do is write a check for the money he believes he is undertaxed, payable to the United States Treasury, and mail it to the following address:

In effect, Hastings will be raising his own taxes. That way he can celebrate his success by paying what he believes he owes this country – without, of course, imposing his own sense of guilt and/or moral superiority on the rest of America.

Anyone want to speculate upon the odds of his actually writing that check?

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Otherwise the world as we know it will come to an end!

President Barack Obama says the time for talk on an economic recovery package is over and "the time for action is now."

Speaking at the Energy Department, Obama made a fresh plea for the stimulus plan that the Senate is debating. He cited the latest bad economic news of jobless claims as another reason for quick action.

He said: "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."

Republicans and some Democrats have expressed reservations about the growing price tag of the package—more than $900 billion. Senate Democratic leaders hope to have a bill completed by Friday.

Earlier today, Obama warned that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill.

Of course, it could be that the real reason is that Congress and the American people might become more aware of this information from the no-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

In other words, the “stimulus” plan is a long-term drag on the economy. But that doesn’t matter to Obama, Pelosi and Reid – they have left-wing constituencies that need rewarding right now!

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks in Kentucky have been freezing and dying for a week since ice storms devastated the state, but Barack Obama only got around to making a disaster declaration on February 5.

President Barack Obama on Thursday issued a major disaster declaration for Kentucky in the wake of a deadly ice storm, ordering federal aid to supplement local recovery efforts.

Gov. Steve Beshear sought the major disaster status earlier this week. The storm has been blamed for 27 Kentucky deaths.

My guess is that Barry Hussein was too busy scarfing down the leftover waygu beef from his Super Bowl shindig do be bothered to act on behalf of those impacted by the storm. After all – Kentucky voted Republican, and the media hasn’t bothered giving the human suffering there much coverage, so there was no political up side to immediate action.

More at Gay Patriot.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, it is only the publicÂ’s money, so why should government officials actually disclose how they are planning on spending it?

"Yes, we do, we have our list, we've been talking to people. We did not put that out publicly because once you start putting it out publicly, you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart," Daley said.

"It's very controversial. Yes, we have ready projects from the Board of Education to the City Colleges to the Park District to the CTA and the city of Chicago. Oh yes. Us and New York decided not to do that. We thought we could go directly into the federal bureaucracies and the different departments," the mayor added.

Besides, with all Daley’s dirtbag cronies in the current administration (up to and including the one in the Oval Office), he probably figure he can go back to operating like his father did – with no accountability whatsoever. Transparency in government be damned.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

You know, wait for the kid to be born alive and then leave it to die. What in a more civilized time was called INFANTICIDE.

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

* * *

One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

Remember, Barack Obama voted against making this illegal back when he was in the Illinois Legislature. He firmly believed then, and believes now, that a woman who pays for a dead baby is entitled to a dead baby, even if the “product of conception” is so inconsiderate as to survive the attempt to exterminate it in the womb.

Now there are several issues here that need consideration.

1) If this incident took place in 2006, why have no charges been brought for 2 ½ years?

2) Why havenÂ’t Florida authorities shut this abortuary down, instead of just yanking the abortionist's medical license?

3) Isn’t this just one more indication that only the lowest quality “medical professionals” are involved in the abortion industry?

4) Is anyone troubled by the fact that Ms. Williams has filed suit against the clinic that killed her baby after she had already paid them to kill the child?

Barry Hussein holds a primetime press conference on Monday night. Will any of his fan club the reporters have the courage to ask him about this incident and his prior actions in opposing the punishment of those who leave babies to die so as to prevent women from being “punished with a baby”?

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Failure to disclose income as required by House rules and federal law FOR THREE DECADES.

A new report says that Rep. Charles B. Rangel failed to disclose what became of thousands of dollars in assets over the past three decades.

The report identifies 28 separate instances within the past 30 years where he failed to report in congressionally-mandated filings on personal assets. The report from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation was based on a review of Rangel's filings from 1978 to the present.

The researchers write, "Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold."

I wonder when Queen Nancy will act to remove this unethical alligator from the congressional swamp?

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Invading a speech and shutting down the speaker is not democracy, no matter how loudly the hooligans in question make the claim that it is.

houting "This is what democracy looks like!" about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was addressing an economic forum and accused him of ignoring the concerns of working-class New Yorkers.

A few minutes into the mayor's speech at a Manhattan hotel, the demonstrators charged in, chanting and waving signs that said, "Mayor Bloomberg, talk to us about the future of NYC!"

Protesters said the demonstration was organized by a coalition that advocates for communities. They said Mr. Bloomberg has ignored the concerns of working-class New Yorkers, favoring the rights of rich developers instead.

Organized by :a coalition that advocates for communities”? I wonder – could that be ACORN? It seems possible – but why aren’t we told for sure?

I'm curious -- is this the kind of Hope'N'Change the Community-organizer-in-Chief told us we should believe in?

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t often urge that convicts be pardoned. And these days, when Wall Street crimes are in the news again, this one is probably goes against the grain of popular sentiment. But sometimes a person who has served his sentence and then engaged in exemplary civic-minded behavior ought to receive a pardon out of gratitude for his good works. And one such person is Michael Milken, the one-time junk bond king.

In the 16 years since his release from prison, disgraced junk-bond king Michael Milken has beaten prostate cancer, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for medical research and reshaped an image tarnished by a 1990 conviction for securities fraud.

* * *

Milken. . . recovered from the disease and started a foundation that has raised more than $350 million for cancer research. He has also donated millions more for scholarship and education programs, and launched the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

I don’t minimize Milken’s earlier misdeeds. But like Chuck Colson, we see in Milken a man who really has been changed by his experience and demonstrated that he is truly rehabilitated. He has no right to a pardon – which is, after all, a privilege extended by the president – but Milken has become the model of what we ought to want to see more of our citizen become.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

If Tom Daschle’s “limousine liberal” venality and Nancy Killefer’s penny-ante tax offenses disqualify them from posts that include spending tax dollars, how can Tim Geithner stay on in a position that includes collecting those tax dollars?

Not only did Geithner neglect to pay his taxes, he turned a buck by doing so—accepting payments from his employer for the very purpose of offsetting those taxes. When he took the money, he signed a statement promising to pay the taxes and then ignored his obligations—for years. Protected by a statute of limitations, he did not pay his 2001–02 taxes until his nomination made them a public issue.
If Daschle’s tax problems should bar him from managing the federal health-services bureaucracy and Killefer’s preclude her from scrutinizing the budget, how is it that Geithner’s transgressions—the worst of the lot—are insufficient to disqualify him from managing the same Internal Revenue Service whose attentions he evaded?

I argued against GeithnerÂ’s confirmation when his misdeeds first came to light. Now that two other appointees have been forced out over tax issues, the argument against his serving as Secretary of the Treasury is even more compelling. Perhaps he and President Obama need to learn the lesson of the little parable that my father kept taped to his bedroom mirror when I was a kid.

Sometime when you're feeling important;
Sometime when your ego's in bloom
Sometime when you take it for granted
You're the best qualified in the room,
Sometime when you feel that your going
Would leave an unfillable hole,
Just follow these simple instructions
And see how they humble your soul;
Take a bucket and fill it with water,
Put your hand in it up to the wrist,
Pull it out and the hole that's remaining
Is a measure of how you will be missed.
You can splash all you wish when you enter,
You may stir up the water galore,
But stop and you'll find that in no time
It looks quite the same as before.
The moral of this quaint example
Is do just the best that you can,
Be proud of yourself but remember,
There's no indispensable man.

Secretary Geithner may be a great guy, and may have many skills and qualifications for his office – but his transgressions are such that he is and should be disqualified from holding a position that oversees the collection of taxes. After all, even if he is “uniquely qualified” for the post, his failure to pay taxes ought to be uniquely disqualifying for the job.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

It might, because nationalizing the health care system will kill off private sector medical care, including abortuaries.

Follow the logic for a moment. LetÂ’s say Progressive (socialist) Democrats are successful at unleashing their command and control utopia on the civilian population. The long term result will be the death of private medicine (among many other private markets). No problemo, some say, because healthcare is a right and only the government can properly secure that right at any cost.

The unintended consequence would be that over the long run, the only place where an abortion would be available is inside the national health system, leaving only the black market for women who wish to remain anonymous and undocumented by the state, (think very young scared girls and cheating spouses).

Then take it one step further, and consider for a moment how long state run abortion services would remain in business after the political pendulum swings back in the conservative direction (or do you think that Republicans will never be in power ever again?) At that point, the pro-lifers will only have to turn off the spigot at one source to eliminate most safe abortion options.

WhatÂ’s more, the cutoff of funds will be quite popular with Americans, a clear majority of whom believe that the government ought not be paying for abortions regardless of whether or not they support abortion being legal. And unless we are going to have the courts reverse decades of jurisprudence and begin ruling that government is obligated to fund the exercise of fundamental rights (in which case I want my domain name and computer paid for under the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press), there will be no recourse.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

I like Sarah Palin. I voted for her. I might (but only might) vote for her again in the future. But I do not feel guided by this endorsement.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has endorsed Rick Perry for re-election, calling him the "true conservative" in a primary election showdown with fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Palin, who electrified the GOP base as the party's vice presidential nominee last year, has strong support among the party's social conservatives. Her endorsement appeared aimed at undercutting Hutchison's appeal with GOP women. Both groups will be important in picking the party's nominee in next year's Republican primary.

Sorry, Sarah, but Rick Perry lost my vote when he decided to play doctor with every little girl in Texas. He lost my vote with his wishy-washiness on border issues. He lost my vote when he lied about property tax reform and implemented a ruinous business tax. None of that is particularly conservative in my book. IÂ’ll stand with Kay Bailey Hutchison instead.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

I have long been a Michael Steele fan. He is, dare I say it, my kind of Republican – a guy who is interested in reaching out to everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion, without compromising on the essentials of conservatism. To the degree that his race matters to me, it is a plus – if it helps him to reach out to African-Americans who are skeptical of the GOP, that makes it a positive factor – but it certainly is not a negative to me and most Republicans with whom I have worked over the year. I supported him for GOP chairman, and am pleased by his victory.

And I must say that I like what I hear from him in this new position. We Republicans have needed a chairman who has grassroots support and the courage to say what it really means to be a Republican – that we are a party that supports human life, civil rights and civil liberties, and a strong national defense.

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

And counting.

It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.

And Barry Hussein has only been president for 14 days – meaning that he has given more than 1.2 waivers a day. At this rate he will be employing every lobbyist in Washington by the time the 2012 election rolls around.

And then there is the pair of tax cheats and the guy who urged Clinton to give dicey pardons.

In other words, this is shaping up to be one of the dirtiest administrations ever.

Is it time to appoint the special prosecutor yet?

H/T Hot Air

UPDATE: Here's a partial list -- though it doesn't include some of the appointees or Tom Daschle, who was a lobbyist in all but name.

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

• Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].


• Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.


• William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.


• William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.


• David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.


• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.


• Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.


• Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.


• Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.


• Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.


• Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.


• Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the presidentÂ’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

“Obama 1260” is no more – the victim of ratings so low that they were virtually unmeasureable.

Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election. But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at...conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett. Tantum said he will move Schultz to WTNT to give him another shot.

In other words, it isn’t that commercial stations are not trying to program liberal talk – it is just that no one wants to listen. Good grief – if it cannot succeed in reliably blue Washington, DC and the liberal suburbs in Maryland and Virginia, is there really a market for such programming?

And notice – the station manager is trying to keep one of the liberal hosts going by moving him to an existing conservative talk station. My guess? Ed Schultz will not go over well there. You know, sort of like a decision to program a bit of baroque chamber music on a hip-hop station. After all, that isn’t what the listeners are tuning in for.

H/T Hot Air, NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

ItÂ’s awful, isnÂ’t it, that President George W. Bush and his invited guests spent Super Bowl Sunday chowing down on $100 steaks in a White House heated to sauna temperatures while people were freezing to death in Kentucky due to a natural disaster to which FEMA has not been dispatched.

Oh, excuse me – that is President Barack Obama.

Tell me – will any white entertainer have the “courage” of Kanye West and make the claim that this FEMA non-response is because Barack Obama hates white people who vote Republican? Of course not – that would be RRRRAAAACCCCIIIISSSSTTTT!!!!

The Anchoress points out the non-response of the Obama administration to this humanitarian catastrophe – and the media’s willing complicity in it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer took a pair of soundbites, uttered nearly a week apart, to make it appear that Rush Limbaugh’s animosity towards Barack Obama is based upon race. In doing so, she took them out of context – and ignored words that made it clear that ideology, not ethnicity, were at the heart of his opposition to Obama.

On Monday morning, ABC’s “Good Morning America” gave Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment a racial slant by editing it in a deliberately misleading way.

In an interview with Sen. John McCain on Monday, anchor Diane Sawyer described Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment as “another big issue in the news.”

She then tossed to a sound bite comprised of two separate comments made five days apart, which ABC joined together. The edited comment made it sound like Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because heÂ’s black.

HereÂ’s the ABC version of LimbaughÂ’s comment:

Limbaugh: “I don’t need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails.”
[Edit]
“We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, because his father was black, because this is the first black president, we’ve got to accept this.”

Looks damning – until one notes that the entire monologue from which the first snippet was pulled dealt with the policy implications of the Obamist platform, and why he views it as bad for America. Indeed, the words which followed indicated that “ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me.” That certainly undercuts the racial argument raised by the creative editing job – which is why those words were left on the cutting room floor.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Linda Chavez put forward this proposal in a column to in contrast to the proposal floated by the Democrats.

Why not give every man, woman, and child in the United States $3,000 to spend on pretty much anything they choose. The price tag would be about $900 billion, barely more than what is in the House package now. But unlike the Democrats' plan, which has government making the decision about how the money should be spent, people would get to decide for themselves.

There'd be no limits on who could receive the money -- a rich man would get the same three grand that a poor woman or child received. The program isn't intended to redistribute wealth, but to infuse the economy with cash. The only rule that would apply is that the money would have to be spent within a certain period of time, say 18 months. In addition, most of the money would have to be spent on buying things: payment toward a new or used car, down payment on a home, some new appliances, home remodeling, clothes, electronics, or even a vacation. Hey, you could even use it to put solar panels on your roof or erect a windmill in your background if that's what you wanted. But only a portion of the money could go to paying down credit card or current mortgage debt -- say, a third -- and then only if the person was already two months in arrears in their payments.

In order to keep this cash distribution about as simple as possible but still allow the money to be tracked so that we know that people are actually buying stuff not hording the money in their bank accounts, the government would disperse it in the form of debit cards linked to the individual's Social Security number. The government could surely subcontract this out to one of the large credit card companies for a small administrative fee charged to the cardholder, similar to what some companies charge now for gift cards. And recipients would receive a statement that they would have to submit with their tax return within the time period to ensure they played by the rules.

While I prefer this idea of putting money in the hands of the people, I don’t know that I like the idea of a government bureaucracy tracking our spending and telling us how we can spend money that is, essentially, our money. But the idea did get me to thinking, and I have an idea that just might work – and would have the advantage of bailing out both banks AND people, while putting money in the hands of people to spend.

What, you may ask, is the idea? Well, it came to me when I encountered this statistic quite by chance.

Revolving credit in November stood at approximately $973.5 billion and was falling at a 3.4 percent annual rate.
Bank credit card debt, except from credit cards from gas stations and stores, comprised 85 percent of total revolving credit, or $830 billion.

My proposal? Pay off all that consumer debt. After all, the total is approximately the amount that was to be spent under the stimulus plan. Instead of sending it to various special constituencies for projects that wonÂ’t be implemented for months or years, spend every penny of it right now. What would the result be? In effect, putting the total amount of individual monthly credit card payments in the pockets of real people immediately, and for every foreseeable month. After all, many Americans would find themselves with an extra $300 or more in disposable income EVERY MONTH.

Now some might argue that this unfairly rewards those who spent too much and incurred debt while doing nothing for those who remained debt free. I’ll agree that there is a disparity – but is it any less fair than giving cash to businesses and groups that were unwise in their business practices or are politically well-connected? And more to the point, a direct bailout of average Americans does two things – it not only allows the Americans whose spending is most encumbered to spend, but it has the effect of putting more money in the hands of financial institutions to lend by taking nearly $1 trillion off in loans off the books of banks, freeing that money up for loans to business and consumers. That would further encourage spending, which would require additional production and additional jobs.

Mind you, I donÂ’t like bailouts as a matter of principal. I donÂ’t favor government give-aways. But if we are going to have one, letÂ’s have one that directly benefits the average American and which will have the added benefit of working to stimulate economic growth immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

1 My plan is similar in that the money would be spent at the individual level rather than by government; however, mine would be constitutionally legal and so simple. Do away with income tax for a few months and instead of waiting until the end of the tax year, individuals would have that money since it would not be taken out as withholding on their weekly or monthly check. Those not working would not get any benefit so it would be a step in the right direction. Those working here illegally and who get paid cash under the table wouldn't benefit either, another step in the right direction. Government will still print money faster than a hostile New York cab driver can honk his horn so they won't have justification for hollering at the loss of tax revenue. What do you think?

Posted by: T F Stern at Sat Jan 31 02:39:12 2009 (Ruh11)

2 Oh, why not? It would work just as well as anything else. And since both Blue Guys and Red Guys just don't give a gosh darn about spending....

Posted by: Ms Cornelius at Sun Feb 1 09:42:27 2009 (VA5bl)

3 pvljljqq kgdexryucqkbw yob

Posted by: Tilngqjy at Sat Feb 7 01:58:44 2009 (tPIn/)

4 ttktfrbv 43873ahfzpkjg :]]

Posted by: Uqboeeln at Sat Feb 7 05:01:47 2009 (GxAro)

5 , pyfzdxey, 29768, subyjdaf, :-]]], yokzfifm, krqyim, iexzgspj, 8945, tjqcdvky, qvsar, jdhintkw, 095,

Posted by: Imqsgmjk at Fri May 1 05:42:40 2009 (QgiFH)

6 sop, uzdmsiae, > , fuqdtgpa, 568712, lvfghvri, hwtosd,

Posted by: Hmlnuvvw at Wed Oct 7 10:53:49 2009 (nUgwk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

An essential part of liberty is the right of freedom of association, which carries with it the right to not associate. The right to freely associate is a part of the basis for the existence of labor unions and for legislation which requires that businesses negotiate with labor unions formed by their employees. But workers do have the right to choose to not unionize, or to decertify a union which they feel no longer represents their best interests.

Former President George W. Bush had done a great service to workers unhappy with union representation by issuing an executive order which interpreted labor law as permitting employers to tell workers that they had that right. Union bosses, needless to say, did not like that, because it meant that they actually had to give a damn if their members (often forced to join due to union shop regulations) were happy with the representation or not. Overturning that regulation was among their high priorities – and today they got Barry Hussein to silence employers so that employees remain ignorant to their rights under federal law.

President Obama plans Friday to reverse an executive order allowing unionized companies to post signs alerting employees that they are allowed to leave unions.

Critics of the order said that while unionized shops were allowed to let workers know they could de-unionize, non-unionized shops were not required to post information telling employees they could unionize.

Now I’ve got a real problem with this move by Obama, and it boils down to this. The Bush order permitted, but did not require, employers to engage in true speech regarding the legal rights of employees, while this new action prohibits such true speech based upon the objection of labor bosses that the old order did not compel (not permit, require) employer speech about the right to unionize. This seems to fly in the face of the First Amendment, as government is regulating the content of speech about activities that are legal. If this regulation were to ban false speech, I’d argue for it – but even Obama and the union bosses acknowledge that the speech which is now banned was not false, not coercive, and not encouraging illegal activity. Rather, it is an explicit attempt to tip the scale in favor of one side of the business/labor equation. As such, I’d argue that the new policy is not merely unconstitutional

Ed Morrissey also makes this observation about the regulation:

Remember when Barack Obama and his administration tried excusing the rescinding of the Mexico City policy on the basis of free speech and keeping women well informed of their medical choices? Apparently, Obama has less concern over American workers than foreign women.

* * *

So American workers should not know that they have the right to de-unionize? Obama wants to keep Americans in closed shops ignorant of their choices? Keep ‘em barefoot and enlslaved to the Union Boss Bills of the world?

In other words, Obama is pro-choice on abortion and no-choice on unions. Or, from another perspective, he wants as much money extracted from the paychecks of productive Americans as he can manage in order to pay for favored liberal causes (abortion, unionism) – even if those made to pay don’t believe in or want the “service” provided in the name of liberalism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like Barry Hussein is a moron -- if we apply the same standard to him that was applied to his predecessor.

Remember -- George W. Bush was labeled an idiot when he attempted to open a locked door (the unlocked door was on the other side of the stage) -- how much dumber must Comrade Hope'N'Change be if he can't tell the difference between a door and a window?

And how "in the tank" is the MSM for not giving this story the same sort of play they gave the door story? Gateway Pundit notes it is somewhere around a factor of 10,000-to-1.

My question -- why didn't Obamessiah simply use his miraculous powers to turn the window into a door?

H/T Don Surber, Patterico

Posted by: Greg at 08:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

The census comes in 2010 – and will be followed by reapportionment and redistricting in time for the 2012 elections. That may bode well for the GOP, as it is red states that will be gaining seats and blue that lose.

The 2010 census could add multiple House seats to red-leaning states — as many as four districts to Texas and two each to Arizona and Florida. And it could subtract seats from blue-trending states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Most of the states slated to gain seats in reapportionment next cycle feature Republican-controlled state legislatures and governor’s mansions — the powerhouses that decide how to allocate congressional districts.

Now let’s be honest – there is no way that all of the seats gained in Texas will be GOP seats. I’d expect at least one to be solidly Democrat. But the reality is that that this seat will be created by peeling Democrat voters from some marginally Democrat districts – making them more competitive for the GOP. And since the GOP is likely to maintain control of both the legislature and the governor’s mansion in 2010, it will be Republicans who will be in the driver’s seat for drawing the new districts. Something similar will be true in Arizona and Florida.

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times today illustrates one of the more dishonest tactics used in any discussion of issues of civil rights today – indeed, a dishonest tactic that has long been used to discredit opponents of a given piece of legislation by so-called supporters of civil rights. In this case, the tactic is used with regard to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck fairness Act. Here’s how.

The new president can play a useful role in helping to rally Senate Democrats not to rest on their Ledbetter laurels and to persuade Republicans to come on board. In the House, only three Republicans voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In the Senate, five did. By now, Republican opposition to civil rights and pay equity is not surprising. That makes it all the sadder.

Do you see it? It is right there in the second-to-last sentence. The editorial writer has defined opposition to a particular piece of legislation as opposition to civil rights and fairness. And that, my friends, is an act of unfairness and dishonesty.

After all, is animus towards civil rights and fairness the only possible reason for opposing these particular pieces of legislation? Could it be that there are flaws in the well-intentioned pieces of legislation that make some question whether their adoption is wise if those flaws are not corrected? Could it be that there are other pieces of legislation that might address the issue in a way that particular legislators prefer? In such cases, might not a negative vote represent service of the public interest rather than opposition to civil rights and fair pay? After all, the mere tagging of a piece of legislation with the words “civil rights” or “fairness” does not necessarily make it the only vehicle for advancing those agendas..

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Normally I prefer to see a federalist solution to most problems, with issues resolved on the state level. However, some issues are, by their nature, federal questions because of their serious impact upon interstate commerce. ThatÂ’s why I fundamentally disagree with the Houston ChronicleÂ’s Nick AndersonÂ’s position in this editorial cartoon.

Here’s the problem – the automobile industry is not one that operates on the local level. It is clearly a national industry, and automobiles both move in interstate commerce and are regularly transported between states. The result of allowing environmental standards to be set on the state level is that the auto industry will have 50 different standards to deal with, potentially necessitating 50 different versions of each and every car due to the need to meet the emissions standards of each state. It is not feasible, and would undermine the already troubled auto industry even further. On the other hand, we could also see the standard of one state become the de facto national standard. Should Vermont or Rhode Island or California, for example, dictate the environmental standards for all 50 states, effectively giving them control over what products may be offered nationwide – a clear matter impacting interstate commerce? For that reason, the matter of automobile emissions standards is one that should be dealt with on the national level rather than the state level – it isn’t a question of rejecting federalism, but rather one of understanding which level a question is most properly handled upon. The Neophyte-In-Chief should have understood and not undone the Bush Administration policy on the matter.

And I'm not alone in this -- just ask Michigan's liberal Democrat Senator Carl Levin.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Too early to tell if the numbers are in free-fall -- but this is a mighty significant drop in less than six days.

BARACK ObamaÂ’s approval ratings have nosedived by 15 points after only six days in office, according to a new poll.

The Gallup poll shows that reality is setting in for the new US President after the euphoria that greeted his inauguration last Tuesday.

But his ratings still stand at an impressive 68 per cent despite the fall.

Granted, 68% is nothing to sneeze at, but it is not the 80+ points of a week ago. And while nobody expected the numbers to stay so high, I don't think anyone thought there would be such a precipitous fall.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently the nationÂ’s cartoonists are having a hard time drawing our new president.

During the presidential campaign, cartoonists frequently homed in on Obama's measured temperament, with more critical strips caricaturing him as cold and aloof. More often than not, though, drawings were complimentary. One showed him mending a Constitution shredded by Bush, and another depicted him as a symbol of 1960s civil rights struggles. Cartoons regularly portrayed Obama as rail-thin with big ears or playing basketball (one of his passions) or placed him in a pantheon with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln.

Oliphant complained that Obama's physical features don't naturally lend themselves to caricature.

"With Bush, you had that general vacuity -- those blanked-out eyes and those goofy expressions. As for Obama, Thank God for his ears. A good-looking president isn't good for cartooning."

Actually, I see two problems.

First, these guys are generally for Obama – they really don’t want to make him an object of ridicule, despite their claims that they are not going to go easy on him. After all, there is plenty to caricature in the “nose-in-the-air, superior-to-you-in-every-way” pose that he so often takes.

But beyond that, these guys have to be careful. If they get too tough on him, we know the usual response – RRRRAAAACCCCIIIISSSSMMMM!!!!

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

This time it is un-funny faux intellectual Jon Stewart, who spent the last several years making money off of rooting for George W. Bush to fail.

So let's get this straight -- opposing Comrade Hope'N'Change and his moves toward socialism is "arguably treasonous", but engaging in 9/11Trutherism and hoping that anti-American terrorists defeat US troops in the field is patriotic. I don't know about you, but I'm sure confused, especially since I know what the Constitution says about treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Limbaugh has done nothing of the sort. Can the same be said of Code pink and much of the rest of the anti-war left?

H/T NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

It being the Age of Obama, the notion that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is now out of fashion on the Left. First Chris Matthews, and now Leonard Pitts have gone so far as to declare Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic over his statement that he hopes Obama fails as president.

"I hope he fails.''

Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous; about Bill Clinton, who was slimy; about Jimmy Carter, who was inept; about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he's going to fail, yes. You may warn he's going to fail, yes.

But do you ever hope he fails? Knowing his failure is the country's failure? Isn't that, well . . . disloyal?

The irony is that Limbaugh and the other clowns would have you believe they are bedrock defenders of this country, that they love it more than the rest of us, more than anything.

That's a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically.

Excuse me, Leonard, but where have you been for the last eight years? I've not heard so much as a peep of outrage from you as your fellow denizens of the Left have questioned the legitimacy of George W. Bush as president, peddled conspiracy theories involving him, spewed endless accusations against him, and even stated that America deserved anything it got from terrorists. You never once questioned their loyalty -- indeed, you joined them in attacking President Bush at every opportunity, reveling in the notion that your dissent was indeed patriotic.

Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot, and you see fit to question the patriotism of Rush Limbaugh for hoping that Barack Obama fails after being a willing part of the movement that sought to make George W. Bush fail. Dare I point to the hypocrisy of your words, sir? Dare you own that hypocrisy?

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

This product is simply creepy -- in a Cultural Revolution sort of way.

Printed in a size that easily fits into pocket or purse, this book is an anthology of quotations borrowed from Barack Obama's speeches and writings. POCKET OBAMA serves as a reminder of the amazing power of oratory and the remarkable ability of this man to move people with his words. His superb and captivating oratory style has earned comparisons to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and this collection presents words that catapulted his remarkable rise to the American Presidency. Includes themes of democracy, politics, war, terrorism, race, community, jurisprudence, faith, personal responsibility, national identity, and above all, his hoped-for vision of a new America. This book is truly a primer for readers who want to examine the substance of his thought and reflect on the next great chapter in the American story. It is an unofficial requirement for every citizen to own, to read, and to carry this book at all times.

What next -- are those of us who don't fall down and worship going to be carried off to labor camps for reeducation and self-criticism sessions? And when will we be expected to get the Mark of Dear Leader on our hand or forehead?

H/T Say Anything

Posted by: Greg at 08:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's see -- Pakistan has never attacked the United States. So why is Barry Hussein denying alleged jihadis there the right to 3 hots and a cot in the USA and a trial before a civilian court? Why use deadly military force instead of sending a couple of beat cops to make the appropriate arrests?

“Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president. . . .

* * *

Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven “foreigners” - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives. ”

Yeah, I know -- this is the same policy as we had under George W, Bush. But this is the era of Hope'N'Change, when we are supposed to adopt a kinder, gentler approach towards terrorists in the name of cultivating a more positive world opinion. Since this policy is one of those things that the anti-war apologists for jihadi terror have long argued should be the basis for the impeachment of the recently departed 43rd president, shouldn't there be an uproar over the continuation of the policy by number 44?

The silence is deafening.

Next thing you know, the Obama Administration will be defending warrantless wiretaps and surveillance programs against American citizens.

Oh, yeah -- they've already done that, too.

Where are those rallies and call for impeachment, lefties? Where is Dennis Kucinich and his articles of impeachment when we really need him?

H/T Malkin, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember how our new president talked about ending partisanship, reaching across the aisle and getting an 80% margin on any stimulus plan.

Well, either he lied, or his definition of “bipartisanship” is “Republicans must abandon their principles and drink my Kool-Aid.”

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Yeah, you may have won – but so did the Republicans in the House and Senate. They were elected by their constituents to push for certain principles, and you would do well to remember that. After all, your position is that of President, not Fuhrer, Duce, or Caudillo – and you would do well to remember there is no requirement that everyone fall in line with your policy preferences.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Israel screwed up by not rooting out every last vestige of Hamas from Gaza – so says the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.

"It was a big mistake to end the war this way," the official said. "The fact that Hamas is still in power is bad for all."

The PA leadership had decided to take draconian measures to thwart any attempt by Hamas to stir unrest in the West Bank, the official also said.

"There's no room for these Hamas thugs in the West Bank," he said. "We won't allow Hamas to turn the West Bank into another Islamic republic."

Now I remain skeptical regarding how much faith may be placed in the Fatah-led PA – but it is certainly more likely to be a cooperative peace partner than Hamas will ever be.

On a side note, the PA has implemented a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank without so much as a whisper from the world community – while at the same time we are hearing absolute silence from the world community about the wave of violence directed by Hamas against the supporters of Fatah. Apparently the lives and safety of Palestinians is only of concern to the world community when they are harmed by Jews.

Posted by: Greg at 02:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems like it wasn’t long ago that we on the conservative side were told that questioning the patriotism of those who claimed America deserved the 9/11 attacks, who insulted the troops and urged them to kill their officers, who leaked and published classified material damaging to national security, sought more legal protection for terrorists than are granted American soldiers or who otherwise gave aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war was somehow unacceptable. Indeed, we were regularly told that dissent – even dissent that seditious, treasonous dissent like that mentioned above – was the highest form of patriotism and that we were somehow fascists if we dared to be critical of those who engaged in the most vile of insults against President Bush.

Apparently, though, those days ended at noon on January 20. Failure to support President Obama blindly and give oneÂ’s assent to his agenda is now defined as hatred of America by the mainstream media.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Up next, does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president. He wants him to fail. What an amazing. I've never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail. Usually you want the new president to succeed and then later on you argue the politics of what he or she does. But to want them to fail at the outset? What's that about?

* * * MATTHEWS: But it turns out that not everyone has warm wishes for the new president. On Friday radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said he was asked by a major print organization to offer 400 words on his hope for the Obama presidency. Here's what Rush had to say just days before the Inauguration.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, okay I'll send you a response but I don't need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails.

MATTHEWS: Well Rush must have a lot of acorns squirreled away not to share everyone else's hopes that the economy does come back.

Yeah, the partisan Mr. “Thrill-up-my-leg” has questioned Rush Limbaugh’s patriotism. Apparently he has become the arbiter of how and when and over what other Americans may dissent. Will the same leftist activists and media talking-heads (in reality, the same thing) call him to account for questioning the patriotism of this dissenter? Will they remain silent as Matthews labels a dissenting political commentator as un-American – or worse yet, will they pile on along with him? In short, do the standards set by the Left during the Bush administration still apply in the Age of Obama – or is the new “thou shalt not dissent” standard one of the changes wrought by the dawning of the Age of Obama?

For what it is worth, I disagree with how Limbaugh expressed his position. I hope Obama is a success as a President – but I believe that for him to succeed he must repudiate the positions he took during the campaign. To the degree that he does not, I also hope that he fails in his efforts to bring to fruition the most of the proposed policies of his administration, policies which I believe will harm this nation. That is, as I understand him, exactly what Limbaugh was saying in the quote above – and that, my dear readers, is precisely the sort of dissent that is truly the highest form of patriotism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Rush should know better than to diss Chrissy's crush! Not only was that mean and smacked of racism...it wasn't even very nice!

Posted by: Mia at Thu Jan 22 11:14:35 2009 (zGfPP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I fully support CaliforniaÂ’s Proposition 8. I believe it to have been a proper action of the people of California to amend their state constitution to define the institution of marriage as they see fit. And I view as illegitimate most of the tactics engage in by its foes to intimidate supporters and prevent the results at the ballot box from being the law of the land.

On the other hand, I applaud the efforts being made by these folks – even as I oppose the measures they are proposing.

Angered by the passage of Proposition 8, grass-roots activists are working to place measures on the ballot to reverse California's ban on same-sex unions.

The sparsely financed groups are acting independently of the No on 8 Campaign, which is challenging the measure in the state Supreme Court. They plan to use the Internet to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures of registered voters needed to get on the ballot.

Two groups took the first step toward qualifying a ballot measure last week with the state Attorney General's Office, asking for an official title and summary. A third group is expected to follow suit this week.

"Our logic is that we should not put all our eggs in one basket and wait for the Supreme Court," said Charles Lowe, who after campaigning against Proposition 8 founded a Davis-based group called Yes! on Equality. "By doing so, we lose anywhere from 8 to 12 months."

His proposed constitutional amendment would repeal Proposition 8, which holds that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

Meanwhile, two heterosexual Southern California college students – Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright – want to take the state out of the marriage business.
Their proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from state laws and replaced with "domestic partnerships."

Shams maintains the measure would provide equality to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, while preserving marriage as a religious and social ceremony.

"This is a compromise," Shams said. "It says 'Get rid of marriage as a state institution. Make it a religious institution, keep politics out of it and stop the fighting.'"

Stephen Stapleton of Sacramento said he plans to file a third ballot measure request this week. Like the Yes! on Equality proposal, it would repeal Proposition 8.

The people have spoken on the issue of homosexual marriage in California -- twice in the last decade. There is nothing, however, to keep them from reconsidering their choice and possibly reversing course. It is my belief that they should not – but if popular sovereignty is to mean anything in this country, then giving these measures a chance to qualify for the ballot and possibly be adopted by Californians is both necessary and proper. And even if I disagree with those pushing these repeal proposals, I would like to express my admiration for their decision to take the high road. Too bad the rest of their movement have instead engaged in tactics similar to those used by the KKK during the 1950s and 1960s.

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.