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.

Well, I guess that is what “Hope & Change” means in the Age of Obama.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs [hopefully being created by government spending] not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers."

Got that? Obama recovery point man Robert Reich is concerned that government spending might actually benefit white people – and wants to make sure that this does not happen.

No doubt this means that we will see race-based qualifications for beneficiaries of these programs, with disproportionate minority participation goals resulting in the exclusion of “excess white men” from the program.

Could you imagine if an official of a Republican administration expressed a concern that government spending not disproportionately benefit African-Americans? But this sort of racial discrimination is the politically correct kind, so the opinion elite wonÂ’t take note of it. After all, in the two weeks since the statement was made, we've heard not one peep out of the media. So much for the press protecting our right to know -- what they truly believe in is our right to drink the liberal Kool-Aid they dispense.

And here we had hoped that this post-racial presidency might result in an end to the sordid practice of sorting our citizens by skin color in the awarding of benefits and burdens. Instead, we have seen a stake driven through the heart of Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society by the administration of the American who most benefited from it.

H/T Malkin

UPDATE: Over at Hot Air, they have the video. Where is the MSM on this one?

Do we need a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama Administration's conspiracy to deprive whites of the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment? At a bare minimum, it is clear from this video that Barry Hussein and his merry band of socialists are on their way to be the administration which has shown the least respect for civil rights since that of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson -- if not that of Confederate Jefferson Davis (D-Mississippi).

UPDATE 2: Darleen Click offers this pointed commentary.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 3 kb.

We have heard from the Left for eight years that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. My friends on the Right and I are nothing if not patriots -- and will dissent from the policies of Barack Obama with more class and dignity than those on the Left showed for the last eight years. And we will work to ensure a rebirth of liberty in four years.

So to my fellow Americans I offer up the prize on which we must focus our eyes.

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

1 oiyrxcgr %[[[znooionz (

Posted by: Vuurayek at Sat Feb 7 03:01:21 2009 (K+8dv)

2 , fiwstrxs, =-OO, oaokyvms, ), zeqreiat, 491,

Posted by: Gznwcrbl at Mon Feb 16 10:20:41 2009 (4GHzY)

3 lucibne zysdpmc czve jpmr out

Posted by: out at Mon Feb 16 15:59:00 2009 (WjNTQ)

4 czxw gnda wqtk vhqo spectrum

Posted by: spectrum at Mon Feb 16 21:48:53 2009 (Tby4V)

5 nfehwv wytdoum qkso sims

Posted by: sims at Wed Feb 18 19:06:15 2009 (GGpip)

6 bcdo nqokfm oxgkca mall

Posted by: mall at Wed Feb 18 19:39:08 2009 (f2us8)

7 tcwoiu ywrin v in

Posted by: in at Fri Feb 20 14:49:36 2009 (f2us8)

8 lfsjone ioxftj solid

Posted by: solid at Fri Feb 20 18:19:21 2009 (MZfBf)

9 , vkgpfnqm, %-))), nmnndvut, 226932, luafpwoa, xkx, vfkjmnoo, > ,

Posted by: Jjeebgfv at Mon Feb 23 02:51:39 2009 (byayP)

10 xlkyie ipko gzvfr sonfjw abs

Posted by: abs at Tue Feb 24 14:17:25 2009 (aXH31)

11 rdsnu eoja abraham

Posted by: abraham at Tue Feb 24 15:53:36 2009 (ktwq7)

12 diasu angel

Posted by: angel at Sat Feb 28 18:06:03 2009 (8qLXL)

13 lgvm wcjy slmijd summer

Posted by: summer at Sun Mar 1 20:07:40 2009 (IQoOj)

14 camytebvq sceykziwn sjbowvk glwuzdyh uzvnhc ncwi glwtyqrmu

Posted by: hynlg hxzr at Mon Mar 2 09:23:13 2009 (LMBhu)

15 cdxhsl rbc

Posted by: rbc at Tue Mar 3 09:16:39 2009 (QyNas)

16 jemtzxl tabs

Posted by: tabs at Tue Mar 3 22:46:30 2009 (eCdk0)

17 tfkguo aeuryx remember

Posted by: remember at Wed Mar 4 16:06:18 2009 (u2ZnT)

18 Hello! hoodia, 6870, http://www.quizilla.com/poems/9563231/generic-hoodia hoodia, 2762, hoodia, 1026, uk zoloft generic, 7193, http://www.quizilla.com/poems/9563228/cheap-zoloft-usa uk zoloft generic, 8475, uk zoloft generic, 4590, lioresal online order, 895, http://www.quizilla.com/poems/9563229/order-lioresal-usa lioresal online order, 3248, lioresal online order, 4543,

Posted by: Uk Buy Hoodia at Fri May 22 11:06:07 2009 (bbFmN)

19 Hello! uk order hoodia, 4826, http://www.quizilla.com/poems/9563231/generic-hoodia uk order hoodia, 7532, uk order hoodia, 2150, buy lioresal uk, 6395, http://www.quizilla.com/poems/9563229/order-lioresal-usa buy lioresal uk, 3422, buy lioresal uk, 1584, buy zoloft usa, 3764, http://www.quizilla.com/poems/9563228/cheap-zoloft-usa buy zoloft usa, 2043, buy zoloft usa, 9050,

Posted by: Uk Buy Hoodia at Fri May 22 13:18:46 2009 (bbFmN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At noon today, Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the United States.

I did not vote for him.

I cannot imagine any circumstance under which I will ever vote for him.

But he is still my president for the next four years, for good or ill.

Let me close with these words I posted the day after President Obama's election in November.

I commit to offering to Barack Obama my support and respect after his inauguration -- and not the same level of support and respect that the Left showed George W. Bush. I will support Obama when he is right, but fiercely oppose him when he is wrong -- something I suspect will be more often than not. But as I said in 1993 when Bill Clinton was inaugurated, my prayer is that Barack Obama leaves this country better than it was at the beginning of his term, and am fully prepared to be pleasantly surprised if he does. After all, my country is more important to me than my party -- as it should be.

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

History will be kinder to you than your critics have been.

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Some folks want to make this story into a big snub, an insult by Obama to George Bush.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama skipped his soon-to-be predecessorÂ’s final address to the nation on Thursday in favor of dining out.

At roughly 8 p.m. in Washington, about the time President George W. Bush began his televised speech, Obama left his new temporary residence across from the White House to go out for dinner in a restaurant a few blocks away.

A couple of observations.

1) In America, no one is required to watch a presidential address.

2) Obama had to eat sometime.

3) There is this remarkable invention called “Tivo” that allows one to record something off of the television to watch later – and there are also older bits of technology like VCRs and DVDs that do the same thing.

4) Like the White House hadnÂ’t already forward Obama a copy of the speech before it was given?

So come on, folks – this is a non-issue.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

One more sign that this man is unfit for the office of Attorney General – or any other public trust under the United States.

Mr. Holder was forced to defend his record as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration as Republicans pressed him during a daylong confirmation hearing about his role in controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton and on other issues.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, led the attack, pointedly suggesting that Mr. Holder had given political cover to then-Vice President Al Gore by refusing to seek an independent counsel to investigate accusations that Mr. Gore had violated campaign finance laws in a 1996 fund-raiser.

For the only time in more than seven hours of testimony, Mr. Holder abandoned his calm, stoic demeanor. “You’re getting close to questioning my integrity, and that’s not appropriate,” he responded. “That’s not fair, and I will not accept that.”

Excuse me, Mr. Holder, but you are being considered for the top position in the Department of Justice, and will have great authority over the investigation of criminal matters and the prosecution of those cases. Given that you supported the questionable pardon of a wanted fugitive (Marc Rich), the unsolicited pardon of a group of unrepentant terrorists to enhance Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign, and refused to investigate illegal campaign activity by a high ranking member of the administration in which you served, I think there is plenty of room to question both your judgment and integrity. It is fair, it is appropriate, and if you can’t accept it then you have absolutely no business seeking confirmation for a cabinet position. Indeed, there is but one appropriate action for you in this case – WITHDRAW! After all, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And if Eric Holder will now withdraw, here an essay by the son of one of the victims of the FALN terrorists whose words quite eloquently explain why those pardoned terrorists should never have been permitted another day of freedom.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday I was willing to give Timothy Geithner the benefit of the doubt. After all, tax errors happen. Even the fact that he was willing to take advantage of the statute of limitations on what appeared to be an honest error was something I could accept. But this development makes him unacceptable – because he is clearly dishonest.

Although it has been dismissed by some observers as a “hiccup” in an otherwise smooth confirmation process, treasury secretary-designate Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay self-employment taxes during the years he worked at the International Monetary Fund is causing some Republicans on Capitol Hill to ask serious questions about his actions. First among those questions is why he accepted payment from the IMF as restitution for taxes that he had not, in fact, paid.

Yeah, you read that right – the IMF gave Geithner the money to pay the taxes – and while he accepted the cash, he didn’t pay the tax. Here are the details.

The IMF did not withhold state and federal income taxes or self-employment taxes — Social Security and Medicare — from its employees’ paychecks. But the IMF took great care to explain to those employees, in detail and frequently, what their tax responsibilities were. First, each employee was given the IMF Employee Tax Manual. Then, employees were given quarterly wage statements for the specific purpose of calculating taxes. Then, they were given year-end wage statements. And then, each IMF employee was required to file what was known as an Annual Tax Allowance Request. Geithner received all those documents.

The tax allowance has turned out to be a key part of the Geithner situation. This is how it worked. IMF employees were expected to pay their taxes out of their own money. But the IMF then gave them an extra allowance, known as a “gross-up,” to cover those tax payments. This was done in the Annual Tax Allowance Request, in which the employee filled out some basic information — marital status, dependent children, etc. — and the IMF then estimated the amount of taxes the employee would owe and gave the employee a corresponding allowance.

At the end of the tax allowance form were the words, “I hereby certify that all the information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments from the Fund.” Geithner signed the form. He accepted the allowance payment. He didn’t pay the tax. For several years in a row.

According to an analysis released by the Senate Finance Committee, Geithner “wrote contemporaneous checks to the IRS and the State of Maryland for estimated [income] tax payments” that jibed exactly with his IMF statements. But he didn’t write checks for the self-employment tax allowance. Then, according to the committee analysis, “he filled out, signed and submitted an annual tax allowance request worksheet with the IMF that states, ‘I wish to apply for tax allowance of U.S. Federal and State income taxes and the difference between the “self-employed” and “employed” obligation of the U.S. Social Security tax which I will pay on my Fund income.”

This isn’t a question of an error – or even taking advantage of a loophole. At this point it becomes a question of intentional fraud and willful tax evasion. As such, there can be no question of actually allowing Geithner to serve in the cabinet. Indeed, it may be that the first thing that we need to start the Obama Administration with the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this matter (as well as the questionable actions of several other nominees) and other matters noted in a New York Times editorial today.

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.

Except it is “pro-freedom” Democrats who want to implement a program of involuntary servitude for young Americans.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”

RangelÂ’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.

Rangel, of course, wants it to be clear that his goal is to undermine the military capability of the US by making it difficult for the US to fight a war, even after we are attacked on our own soil by a foreign enemy.

Frankly, I don’t see how the Democrats can oppose the Rangel plan – after all, Barack’s proposed mandatory volunteer national service program (call it the “Obama Youth”) already proposes involuntary servitude for young Americans. Why would Rangel’s bill create a “distraction” if it does, in fact, seek to fulfill one of Obama’s own proposals?

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

The choice of a buffoon like Joe Biden as vice president may have been a wise move by Barack Obama – after all, anything the new president says will look like sage wisdom by comparison to the sorts of things that regularly drip from the new veep’s mouth. But what is really scary is that Biden holds such an inflated opinion of himself, as demonstrated by his words here.

"I know as much or more than Cheney. I'm the most experienced vice president since anybody."

Now letÂ’s consider this for just a moment.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Does Biden really want to argue that he is more experienced or prepared than two of the most important Founders?

But then again, maybe we get some insight into the workings of Biden’s mind when we recognize that he does concede that one many may have been better prepared – Lyndon Johnson (who went on to be one of the worst presidents in history). What do they have in common? An extended tenure in the Senate – with Johnson having also been Senate Majority Leader and therefore having a greater breadth of experience.

Aside from being a rather narrow definition of “experience”, Biden’s criteria would also argue that he was not the best qualified choice for VP – and I therefore urge him to step aside and allow Obama to appoint Senator Robert Byrd, a former majority leader, president pro tem and KKK Kleagle, as vice president.

Call it “Experience We Can Believe In.”

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

If he really does believe this, he must be – and would almost certainly be the only Texan to hold that belief.

Gov. Rick Perry expressed doubts Tuesday that U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will enter the 2010 Republican primary race against him and said Texans want a leader like him with "big ideas."

Perry, after addressing lawmakers on opening day of the Texas Legislature, talked about his record as governor and his ideas for the future in a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press. The state's longest-serving governor, Perry said he wants to run next year for a third full term in office.
Hutchison has formed an exploratory committee to run for governor in 2010.

Perry noted that she hasn't formally jumped into the race and, when asked whether he has doubts that she will, Perry said: "Oh yeah. I mean, there's plenty of time for the senator to think that it's not in her best interest, Texas' best interest or the country's best interest to leave the United States Senate and come run for governor. But that's, again, that's her call.

"I'm running," Perry added. "I've announced, I'm in, I'm here and I'm enjoying continuing to move Texas forward."

For all of his “not in the best interests of Texas” rhetoric, what he really means is that it is not in the best interests of Rick Perry for Senator Hutchison to seek the governorship. The best interests of Texas are best served by getting him out of that office.

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Now I can accept that a paperwork snafu led to immigration issues for a domestic employee. And I can accept that even the brightest guy can make a tax mistake – those IRS rules are confusing, and the one he broke more than most. But when you get pinged for a violation on one return that you know you made in other years but choose not to correct since you didn’t get caught, doesn’t that raise a serious character issue that needs to be considered?

Timothy Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund, and he employed an immigrant housekeeper who briefly lacked proper work papers.

* * *

At the closed-door meeting, Mr. Geithner was contrite, several participants said. He told senators the mistakes weren't intentional, but that he should have known better. The Internal Revenue Service makes up by far the largest piece of the Treasury's budget.

Mr. Geithner declined to comment on any matters as he left the closed-door meeting Tuesday.

The tax issue relates to Mr. Geithner's work for the International Monetary Fund between 2001 and 2004. As an American citizen working for the IMF, Mr. Geithner was technically considered self-employed and was required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself as both an employer and an employee.

* * *

In 2006, the IRS audited Mr. Geithner's 2003 and 2004 taxes and concluded he owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230, according to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee. The IRS waived the related penalties.
During the vetting of Mr. Geithner late last year, the Obama transition team discovered the nominee had failed to pay the same taxes for 2001 and 2002. "Upon learning of this error on Nov. 21, 2008, Mr. Geithner immediately submitted payment for tax that would have been due in those years, plus interest," a transition aide said. The sum totaled $25,970.

And therein lies the problem – Geithner DID know about the issue after the 2006 audit. He knew that he did his taxes the same way in 2001 and 2002 that he did in the years for which he was audited – but did nothing to correct the problem. THAT is troubling – but whether it is a sufficient question regarding his integrity to merit the denial of confirmation is one we have to consider.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

As predicted, the Democrats fold in the face of the Blagojevich gambit.

The Roland Burris saga is over, as Democratic Senate leaders have accepted his credentials, clearing the way for him to be sworn in as the junior senator from Illinois by the end of this week.

The decision ends an embarrassing chapter in Democratic politics and allows the Senate to move on after the Burris spectacle dominated the opening week of the 111th Congress

In a statement issued after a 45-minute meeting between Senate officials and BurrisÂ’ lawyers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Burris is the senator-designate from Illinois now that the secretary of the Senate has approved his latest credentials.

“Accordingly, barring objections from Senate Republicans, we expect Senator-designee Burris to be sworn in and formally seated later this week,” the statement said. “We are working with him and the office of the vice president to determine the date and time of the swearing-in.”

Remember – this is the same appointee that these same Democrat “leaders” declared would never be seated due to the “taint” of being appointed by the indicted Illinois governor. Well, I guess the best legal advice they could find told them what anyone who is familiar with the Constitution could have told them – the Senate really had no option but to seat Burris because he was properly appointed under the US Constitution and the laws of the state of Illinois. Thus the leadership of the Senate starts out with a big black eye, having been shown to be impotent blowhards.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

One more reason I love Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal:

"We should genuinely want him to succeed. Our country is facing not only an economic challenge, but also international threats. ... I want our country to thrive under his administration. Clearly I will have philosophical disagreements with him. He deserves a chance to hit the ground running. He hasn't proposed his first bill. Republicans make a mistake in Congress if they simply go there and say their mission in life is to say 'no' to every proposal. I think we should look for opportunities to work with him. I also think we should be proactive if we don't agree with him and offer (alternative) solutions."

After watching the Democrats spend eight years trying to destroy George W. Bush, it is tempting to do the same to Barack Obama, a many who is uniquely underqualified for the office to which he has been elected. Love of country, though, mandates that I follow the path suggested by Jindal – which is a more eloquent statement of something I’ve been saying since election day. Country trumps party – and the good of the United States is more important than the good of the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 09:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

I am always taken aback when I see articles and commentaries about how certain groups don’t have enough representation in elected bodies because those bodies don’t have the right proportion of those ethnic minorities filling the seats. But as is typical of many liberals, Houston City Councilman James Rodriguez gives us another one lamenting the “underrepresentation” of Hispanics on the Houston City Council.

In 1991, Ben Reyes was the lone Latino serving on the 15-member Houston City Council. By 1996, four Latino council members served on Council: Gracie Saenz, Felix Fraga, Orlando Sanchez and John Castillo. Today, 17 years later, there is once again a lone Latino council member. As the only Latino serving on City Council, I take this as an opportunity to challenge my fellow Latino leaders across our great city to intensify our efforts to help create a stronger political voice for the growing Latino community.

Latinos are the city's fastest growing population group, a fact that is not reflected on our City Council.

Houston is home to nearly a million Latinos, almost half of this city's population, and appropriate representation for the community needs to be addressed through engagement in the political process.

I challenge myself and the local Latino leadership to invest in the premise of a nonpartisan political engagement strategy involving a united Latino community.
Therefore, I have taken the initiative, along with many of my elected colleagues, to organize the inaugural Houston Area Latino Summit for Saturday, Feb. 14.

Now there are a number of things which should be noted here.

First, the reason Rodriguez is the only Latino on the council is that the other one was just elected county sheriff and so resigned his seat on the city.

Second, those four members of the city council in 1996 were term-limited out after three terms – even though it is reasonably certain that any of the four could have been comfortably reelected (and likely could be today).

Third, one major reason for the underrepresentation is turnout – which in turn is (in part) a factor of citizenship. As long as Houston’s Hispanic community remains heavily composed of first-generation immigrants (legal and illegal) who are not citizens, there will always be a smaller turnout than one would expect at first glance. Indeed, I’d argue that this will continue for at least another decade or two. Even after the districts are redrawn to include two additional seats, it is unlikely that we will see the balance shift dramatically – indeed, I suspect that the outcome will be one additional Latino member of the council and one African-American. At-large seats will continue to favor white and African-American candidates due to turnout and citizenship issues.

The real question, though, is whether or not the interests of any given community are represented on the City Council. Interestingly enough, Rodriguez does not address that issue. Is he really arguing for more of the same race-based politics? Moreover, does he really want to argue that only an individual with the right skin color can represent a particular group only one week before our majority white nation inaugurates its first black president?

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.

You know, as a part of their advise and consent function regarding HillaryÂ’s nomination as Secretary of State.

While Mr. Clinton's fundraising has been an appearance of a conflict waiting to happen with his wife a senator, it will only get worse and more troublesome once Ms. Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state. Per the agreement with Mr. Obama, a list of who is bankrolling the foundation will be released once a year. Only new donations from foreign governments will be examined by government ethics officials. And there is no prior review of donations from foreign companies or individuals or those in the United States with interests overseas. Mr. Clinton's continued globetrotting while collecting checks along the way could embarrass the administration on multiple, sensitive and dangerous fronts.

When the Washington Post remarks how much this conflict of interest stinks, you know that there is a real problem. And just imagine how much louder (and widespread) the howls of outrage would be if this were a Republican administration.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

And that Tavis Smalley thinks that I (and the rest of America”) ought to is rather troubling – after all, he is merely president.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: [Reid] says he doesn't work for Barack Obama. I think he's wrong.

TAVIS SMILEY: Harry Reid, put down the crack pipe. You don't work for Barack Obama? We're all working for Barack Obama.

Tavis, maybe you need to put down the crack pipe.

First, aren't journalists supposed to be objective?

Second, Obama isn’t a dictator, monarch, or demigod – and there is no requirement that any American to goose-step along with his agenda if they oppose any or all of it.

However, I will note that Barack ObamaÂ’s inability to get the leadership of his own party in Congress to follow him may be an indication of how pathetic he will be as president.

H/T NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, only enemies of public education want the predominantly minority students of the District of Columbia to be able to escape the cityÂ’s failing schools.

We have seen the enemy -- and he is Obama.

It remains awfully difficult to catch a glimpse of First Kids-to-Be Malia and Sasha Obama, but at least we can say for certain where they are this morning: getting to know their new classmates at the Sidwell Friends campuses in upper Northwest Washington and Bethesda.

The president-elect moved his transition operation to Washington yesterday in order to be with his girls as they started at their new school. Obama, who will meet with congressional leaders today to discuss an economic stimulus package, did not accompany his daughters to school this morning. But transition officials released these photos of him saying good-bye to them at their hotel suite.

Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, left the Hay-Adams Hotel with their mother, Michelle Obama, at 7:10 a.m. Their motorcade emerged from a security tent that has been erected outside the posh hotel, and they drove off with nary a wave to the throngs of cameras or the waiting crowds.

Malia, a fifth-grader, arrived at Sidwell's middle school in the 3800 block of Wisconsin Avenue at 7:30 a.m., a full half-hour before the school day began. The motorcade bypassed the main entrance to the underground garage at Wisconsin Avenue and Rodman Street NW, opting instead for a side entrance adjacent to Fannie Mae's James A. Johnson Housing and Community Development Center.

Whatever Michelle Obama did to settle Malia into her class, it didn't take long. At 7:41, the motorcade exited another driveway slightly to the north, adjacent to the Friendship Post Office.

Only the best for the First Kids – but neither hope nor change for children stuck in the public schools in the District of Columbia. Instead, Obama stands in the schoolhouse door to make sure that his little darlings don’t have to mix with the masses.

But we shouldn't be surprised -- the Chicago Public Schools run by his new Secretary of education weren't good enough for the little Obamalings.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve been peripherally aware of Brandon Darby over the last three years as a liberal activist who was scathingly critical of the Bush Administration and its policies. I disagree with him on many of those points. However, I applaud him for having the courage to act as an FBI informant in cases involving planned acts of domestic terrorism at the 2008 GOP convention. Indeed, any American with any sort of functioning moral compass should do the same.

Which is why the response of liberal activists to DarbyÂ’s acknowledgment of his role in preventing terrorist acts by a pair of terrorist-wannabes is quite telling.

When The St. Paul Pioneer Press published an article in October that cited an unidentified source who named Mr. Darby as an informant in the case against Mr. Crowder and Mr. McKay, a co-founder of Common Ground, Scott Crow, defended Mr. Darby publicly and warned against “rumors, conjecture and innuendo.”

“I put it all on the line to defend him when accusations first came out,” Mr. Crow said. “Brandon Darby is somebody I had entrusted with my life in New Orleans, and now I feel endangered by him.”

Endangered? By daring to assist law enforcement in preventing acts of political violence in the streets of America? Exactly where do your loyalties (and those of your fellow “activists”) lie, Mr. Crow?

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

One out before the confirmation battle:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to be commerce secretary, withdrew from consideration yesterday, citing an ongoing federal "pay-to-play" investigation involving one of his political donors as a significant obstacle to his confirmation.

Richardson, 61, who competed unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, becomes the first political casualty in Obama's Cabinet, and his withdrawal marked the first visible crack in what had been one of the smoothest presidential transitions in modern history.

Yep – another political ally into pay-to-play. What is it about these dirty Dem governors? And given the ties between Obama, his Chicago crew, and Gov. Blagojevich in Illinois, how can anyone call this transition “smooth”. Hell, it already appears that there is serious need for a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama administration two weeks before the man even takes office.

And then there might be another dirty Dem in the prospective Cabinet – the nominee for Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton.

A developer in New York state donated $100,000 to former President Bill ClintonÂ’s foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessmanÂ’s mall project.

Hillary Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse.

She also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction.

The bill with the tax-free bonds provision became law in October 2004, weeks before the donation, and the highway bill with the set-aside became law in August 2005, about nine months after the donation.

Mighty suspicious timing, don’t you think. Here’s hoping the Senate takes the time to look at this before confirming her – assuming that she isn’t as dirty as she appears here. Remember the old standard of the Democrats – the appearance of impropriety is itself an impropriety.

And, of course, there is Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, whose involvement with the Marc Rich pardon and the unsolicited pardon of a gang of Puerto Rican terrorists is already predicted to be the source of fireworks during his confirmation hearings.

All of which leads me to ask – is it possible that the incoming Obama administration did as poor a job vetting cabinet nominees as the press did vetting their candidate during the campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, she is seeking to implement rules that effectively bar full participation of Republican lawmakers in the business of the House of Representatives. Fortunately, the GOP is standing up to her.

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress.

Will President-elect Obama speak out against these moves towards legislative tyranny? Or is this the sort of change we are supposed to believe in as a part of the new tone in Washington?

Posted by: Greg at 02:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

From our future president, Bobby Jindal:

"Some think the job of government is simply to collect taxes and spend money. I do not subscribe to that view."

Thank God we still have some in public office who recognize that the purpose of government is to provide ESSENTIAL services that we cannot provide for ourselves, not provide all services while socializing the costs through ever-higher taxation and spending.

In one move, Jindal wiped out nearly half of this year's budget deficit (due to falling oil prices) by ordering spending cuts. He also recommended cuts that will eliminate the rest of that deficit if Louisiana's legislature goes along with them. Here's hoping that his actions will be noted in Washington -- and that they will serve as an example to other public officials on how to govern in a fiscally responsible manner.

H/T American Thinker

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.