Last night, during round 20 of the Democratic pseudo-debates in Cleveland (which I nickname RABID MSNBC DOGS ATTACK HILLARY), Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred about health care, NAFTA, and Iraq. It was absolutely (yawn) electrifying. The candidates staked out their clear differences on the issues. In summary:

Hillary is for universal health care. Obama is for universal health care.
Hillary wants to renegotiate NAFTA. Obama wants to renegotiate NAFTA.
Hillary wants to pull the troops out of Iraq. Obama wants to pull the troops out of Iraq.

Note the subtle policy differences. You'll have to look closely, because they are very nuanced. These are two very smart Ivy league graduates here. If you are just a regular person, it's probably over your head, and you should just vote for the person the media tells you to vote for. That would be best. Resistance is futile. In other words, Vote for Obama. Vote for Obama. Vote for Obama.

Rather than listen to candidates who agree about absolutely everything pretend to argue, I propose that Barack and Hillary become co-presidents since they are the same person, politically speaking. It would be unfair to choose one over the other, and picking only one would probably be harmful to the loser's self esteem. No self-respecting liberal would want that, right ? That would be mean, fascist, and way harsh. Sounds like something Dick Cheney would do. Hillary even has prior experience as co-president. She will be ready on day one, and then Barack could take day two, after Hillary gives him the White House tour. Following that, they could alternate days, with each getting two weekends off per month - with pay, of course. As an additional bonus, we'd get the first black president AND the first woman president at the same time ! History in the making, times two. Maybe Hillary would even return the White House silverware the Clintons stole on the way out the door in 2001. It's win-win folks, except for you taxpayers. Unfortunately for you, Hillary and Obama are both liberal Democrats, and will most likely have a Democratic-led Congress. Bend over. The Dems will be "investing" in all kinds of stuff to "help" you. Translated, that means you'll be broke, but what a small price to pay for all that history-making. Don't be so selfish. It's only money.

Ohio has become a major battleground in the Democratic primaries. The Democratic presidential nomination may hinge on who wins Ohio. As a result, both Dems have discovered they are against NAFTA, much more against it than they ever were before, as a matter of fact. And when they are talking to a group of blue collar Ohio factory workers, the candidates find they HATE NAFTA with a passion, and always have (except for when they were quoted saying NAFTA was beneficial. Ignore the man behind the curtain).

Here's Barack Obama speaking about NAFTA a few days ago:

"Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have."

Here's Barack Obama speaking about NAFTA a couple weeks ago:

"It's a game [the Washington status quo] where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart".

Now, the merits of NAFTA are definitely a subject for debate, and maybe I'm not a smart Ivy league grad like Mr. Obama, but I'm pretty sure about one thing. NAFTA, a free trade agreement between Canada, the USA, and Mexico, isn't responsible for any jobs being shipped overseas. Those 3 countries are all part of the same land mass, North America, and there are no seas between them. I learned a little something in 5th grade geography class, in between passing notes to my puppy love Wendy.

Obama also voted to expand NAFTA into Peru, a move not supported by the AFL-CIO, and a pretty bizarre move for someone who claims he was always against NAFTA.

And there's the rub. Obama WASN'T always against NAFTA, unless by "always" he means "always since I set foot in Ohio in 2008 needing to be against it to win Ohio and secure the Democratic presidential nomination". Maybe it's like Bill Clinton's definition of the word "is", you know, malleable.

Here's Obama talking about NAFTA in 2004, according to AP:

"NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States." His comments, as reported in 2004, were that NAFTA had brought enormous benefits to his state.

Thats called doin' the NAFTA hustle.

Now that the NY Times phony sex/lobbyist scandal about John McCain has been exposed for the fraud it was, the left is on to it's next attempt to undermine McCain's candidacy, which has caused one of my favorite political standup comedians, Howard Dean, to return to the news this week. Dean is most remembered as the 2004 Democratic presidential frontrunner for about 10 minutes, until people realized he was insane. Upon discovering his lunacy, Democrats did the logical thing, and made him the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). You can go here for some classic dumb Dean quotes. Here's a sample of Howie's brilliance :

"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

Very patriotic, Howard. Now that I think about it, Barack Obama holds the same belief.

Anyway, as DNC head, Mr. Dean has currently decided that the only fair way to conduct this year's presidential elections is for John McCain to be forbidden from raising any more money at all between now and november, while Barack Obama is allowed to raise all he wants. I kid you not. That is exactly what Dean is attempting to bring about. You see, back when McCain's presidential chances were looking pretty slim and he wasn't raising any money, McCain filed his intention to accept federal funds. If a candidate accepts federal funds, there is a limit to the amount of money he can spend, and McCain is almost to the limit. However, McCain never accepted the federal funds, because, as we all know, his presidential campaign turned around. Now McCain doesn't need the federal funds and doesn't want them. That doesn't work for Howie. He wants to hold McCain to the spending limits for the federal funds that he never took. I kid you not. That's our crazy old Howie, alright. There are a couple ironies here. The first one is that Howard Dean pulled the exact same switcheroo on federal funds in 2004 that he is objecting to McCain doing now. The second irony is that McCain is attempting to get around the rules that he himself imposed with McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. We told you it was a bad idea, John. You'd think the fact that RUSS FEINGOLD was the co-sponsor of the bill would have tipped you off that it was bad legislation. Read about the campaign finance flap here.

***

The Clinton campaign apparently forwarded a photo of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb (read: looking like a Muslim) to the Drudge Report. The implication is that Barack is a secret Al Qaeda operative who will blow up the country once he tricks us into making him president. Classy move, Clintonistas. Obama has declared the photo's release to be the 'worst example of man's inhumanity to man in all of recorded human history', or something like that. Hillary denies all knowledge, as usual. You can see the photo here if you care about this non-story.

***

Hillary also mocked Obama's superfluous rhetoric and Jesus-like hold over his acolytes, by saying the following at a Providence rally:

“I could just stand up here and say ’Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified. The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions at how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.”

The video is actually pretty funny. For the first time ever, Hillary made me laugh. You can watch it here.

***

Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race, causing conservatives to yawn and liberals to cry 'oh no, not again !'. Apparently, Barack Obama isn't far enough to the left for Ralph. He calls Obama a "corporate Democrat". Hmmm. And here I thought only Republicans were allowed to be called "corporate". Does this mean that some Democrats have jobs too ? Obama had the following dismissive reaction to Nader's candidacy (this is from The Australian):

On the Nader candidacy, Senator Obama said: "My sense is that Mr Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, he thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work." He also speculated that Mr Nader's "few percentage (points) of the vote" would not influence the election outcome.

Ouch. Saint Obama says thou shalt not pretend to the throne, Mr. Nader.

Nader refers to such reactions to his candidacy as "bigoted", and refers to Washington D.C. as "corporate occupied territory". You can read the entire Australian article here.

***

Back to you, liberal media.

I'm going to do a David Letterman impression, and give you my top ten reasons why John McCain will lose to Barack Obama in november.

1. Iraq.

McCain actually wants to put MORE troops in Iraq. He wants a surge on top of the surge. It seems the old soldier (who has three children in the military, btw, so the chickenhawk argument doesn't fly here lefties) has some crazy idea that america can succeed in Iraq. Can you believe that old coot ? America, WIN a war ? He must not be in touch with reality. How can the world's lone superpower possibly win a war against such a technologically advanced foe like Al Qaeda and the insurgents ? Impossible, and Barack Obama knows so. He will pull our troops right out of there, and consequences, shmonsequences. Who cares if Iraq then descends into chaos ? Who cares if the extremists take over that country ? Who cares if it destabilizes the entire Middle East ? Let those Muslims kill each other. Not our problem, even though we were the ones who tore Iraq open. It's not like we depend on Middle Eastern oil for our economy to run or anything…..oh, well, yeah, I guess we do. Strike that last part.

In fairness to Obama, he did say he might put the troops back in if Iraq does descend into chaos after we leave, but maybe he should strongly consider the likelihood of such a possibility BEFORE HE PULLS THE TROOPS OUT. I'm just saying. Taking a responsible and cautiously considered position on Iraq wouldn't play as well for the Obama campaign as 'End the war in Iraq now !' though. His fans like to keep things simple.

2. McCain is a Republican.

What can I say, this ain't the Republicans year. You could call it getting Bushwacked.

3. McCain is old, Obama is young.

One word: Television. Back in the old days, McCain's experience and accumulated wisdom would be a strong selling point, but now it's who looks good and who sounds good. We don't have time to think about what the candidates are actually saying, only about how they look saying it. Hope and unity, baby ! Yes we can ! Change you can believe in ! Take the first star and straight on till morning !

4. Getting out the vote.

Obama will, McCain won't. Check out the difference between the number of voters in the Democratic primaries and the number in the Republican primaries this year. It's almost two to one in favor of the Dems. That spells LANDSLIDE come november.

5. The mainstream media.

Always worth 15 points to the Democrats. ALWAYS. This year may be the first time that the Dems don't need it to win.

6. Health care.

Obama promises universal health care and McCain doesn't. End of story. Like I said, you gotta keep things simple for the sound byte generation. McCain has about 30 ideas to make health care better on his website, but nobody wants to hear all that when Obama is saying 'health care for everyone, and cheaper too !'. Never mind that Obama won't be able to deliver universal health care, and if by some remote chance he does, it will be a disaster, and anything but cheaper. It's all about hope, remember ? Did you know that Harry Truman proposed universal health care in 1950 ? I didn't either until yesterday, when Ralph Nader said so on Meet The Press. Ralph is running again, but this year, unlike 2000, it won't make a difference in the outcome of the election.

7. Republicans nominated the wrong guy.

It's called selling your soul, Republicans. It's how you got into this mess. Will you guys ever learn ?

8. Bush fatigue.

McCain will be portrayed by Obama as Bush II, and most of the country will agree. The country wants a change from the Bush policies, to put it mildly.

9-10. Okay, I don't have two more reasons, but these lists have to contain 10 items. I think it's a law, somewhere in the Constitution (probably the 10th amendment, eh ?). I could talk about the dissolution of the different factions of the Republican coalition, or the natural ebb and flow of the political tide, due to the fact that over time we want to change political parties much like we change underwear, and for the same reason. But instead, I'll just spare you from any more of my rambling. Hey, stop applauding.

Maybe it was all those Obama-Clinton-Edwards-Kucinich-whatstheirnames Democratic debates. Maybe it was listening to our messiah Obama at Youngstown State University the other day. Maybe it was Michelle Obama, a Harvard and Yale graduate who has benefited so greatly from what this country has to offer, saying that Barack's success provided her with the first occasion in her adult lifetime to be proud of her country. Maybe it was reading the National Enquirer New York Times for so many years.

Or maybe I just got a bad burrito from Taco Bell last night.

Whatever it was, I've had an epiphany. I've had a breakdown breakthrough.

I've listened to so many liberals progressives for so long that they've finally convinced me - america is a very, very bad place, run by a very, very bad man, George W. Bush. This man Bush is responsible for all the evil in america, and about 90% of the evil in the whole world. I'm not kidding. The wise woman Hillary kept saying so during last night's Democratic debate, and she seems very honest and concerned, so she must be telling the truth. It also seems that america was a very GOOD place before this evil Bush fellow took over, a regular garden of Eden, but alas, that's all over now. Bush has taken health care away from the people, for example (although the wise woman was trying to fix health care back in 1992-93, so I don't know how that could really be accura…oops, there I go, questioning the wise woman again. My deepest apologies. I'm new at being an unquestioning liberal progressive).

The best we can hope for is that the messiah or the wise woman will lead us out of the darkness, away from this evil place where we have to work for our food, shelter, clothing, and other needs - where we work like slaves, usually 40 hours per week, and then other people make more money than we do. It is so wrong, isn't it ? The hell with those other people. The messiah and the wise woman are going to bring us together as a country, and unite us against those other people.

They call this evil, degrading thing Capitalism. I spit on thee, Capitalism, just like Hugo Chavez, the messiah, and the wise woman do. Ditto for that whole Freedom concept. Who needs it ? It's just a word used to distract the morons. We are 'free' to do this, 'free' to do that. Good riddance. Gimme shelter instead (free, of course). Like Janis Joplin said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". She was another wise woman, that Miss Joplin, at least until she overdosed on heroin and died so young. Did Capitalism help her ? Did freedom help her ? Heck no. See what I'm saying ? No justice, no peace.

The way out of this massive injustice where some people have more money than others is to take the money away from those who have it, and give the money to those who don't, you know, like Jesus would do, like Robin Hood did, like Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution did, and like the Russian Revolution did. That's the only fair way. We can't have people running around making more money than others, prospering, accomplishing things, starting businesses, getting good grades in school, etc, when others can't. That is unfair. I mean, how are we ever going to build a strong and prosperous society that way ? Duh-uh. You can count on the messiah and the wise woman to do their best to make everything even and fair, and they will accomplish it by gaining control of our government and making our government good once more, instead of evil like it is now. That is such a wonderful plan, because everyone knows that if government takes power over everything, and the messiah or the wise woman are in control, they would use that total government power for the welfare of the peons people. Well, at least they would for four years, until the next election. Then we'd get someone else running the government with total power. Hmmm. What if that next person weren't so good ? Ah, no matter, what could possibly go wrong there ? I'm probably just being paranoid. Like I said, I'm not used to being braindead liberal progressive.

We're going to need a word to describe this new type of government, the one with total power to do good. Let's see…How about 'TOTAL-ITARIANISM' ? Yeah, cool. Sounds good. Let's go with it.

Under Total-itarianism, it will be so great when I no longer have to worry about food, shelter, clothing, health care, credit cards, mortgages, high gas prices, and stuff. Man, I can hardly wait. In fact, since all my needs will be taken care of, I'll just retire and live the good life. Forget all that work stuff. Who needs that ? It would interfere with my new lifestyle. I'm definitely voting for the messiah or the wise woman.

Only when such happy days arrive will we finally fulfill the words of the U.S. Constitution, which says, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I don't know about that ability stuff, but boy, I sure have lots of needs. Like, I need to go to Las Vegas at least twice per year, and I need a good stereo system, a wide-screen digital tv, and maybe one of those sleep-number beds……

This is definitely going to rock ! Vote for Obama. Or Hillary. It really doesn't matter. I don't know why they even bothered to have that so-called debate. They agree about everything, like good panderers liberals progressives do. Let's just appoint one Czar and let the good times roll.

On tuesday night, following the Wisconsin primary, Republican presidential nominee John McCain admitted he had the nomination wrapped up. There was no way he could lose it.

As a result, the liberal media doesn't have to pretend to love him anymore. The courtship is over. McCain is now THE ENEMY, and destroying him will be job one, just as securing him the Republican nomination was job one during the primaries. The presidential matchup the media wanted was McCain vs. Obama, which is what the matchup will be. No coincidence there.

On wednesday, the day following McCain's declaration as the nominee, right on cue, the New York Times ran a hit piece on McCain about his alleged ties to a lobbyist, bringing into question the very quality that resonates the strongest with voters about McCain, his ethical standards. No coincidence there either. The Times hit piece even suggested McCain was involved in a romantic relationship with Vicki Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist. The alleged impropriety from McCain took place in 2000, nearly 8 years ago. I'm certain the NY Times JUST discovered this info, har-de-har, just as I'm certain that Barack Obama was selected as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention via a random lottery drawing.

You better get used to the attacks, Mr. McCain. This is only the beginning. Between now and november, you won't be feeling that same old love from the media to which you are accustomed. The same media who so abhorred the "swift-boating" of John Kerry in 2004 is going to revel in kicking you in the groin for the next 8 1/2 months. Your age will be called into question. Your temperament will be called into question. Your military record will be called into question. Your senate record will be spun until you don't even recognize yourself. They will call you Bush II. They will call you a warmonger, divisive, a neocon, a fascist, unstable, senile, mean, a racist, out for the rich, and a flip-flopper.

And the entire time they are doing it, they will be complaining about the negative campaign being waged by the Republican attack machine against poor Barack Obama. If you think I'm kidding, just take note and watch it happen.

Here's the response to the Times hit piece from the McCain camp:

"He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election," the campaign said in a statement issued by its communications director, Jill Hazelbaker.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

Call the NY Times hit piece a Dear "John" letter. They are breaking up.

I attended the Barack Obama campaign rally yesterday afternoon at the Beeghly Center at Youngstown State University. The house was filled to capacity and the crowd was enthusiastic, though there was no swooning or fainting (consequently, larry d, I was unable to determine if the Reverend was in attendance). The crowd consisted predominantly of young people, no surprise, since the event was held on a weekday afternoon at a university. The Obama keyword, 'change', appeared on banners and signs throughout the gymnasium. I didn't record the event, so when I quote Obama, I might not be 100% word for word accurate. Please grant me that small indulgence.

Predictably, the biggest cheer from the crowd came when Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, but Obama did not come across as a pacifist in this speech. He promised to strike against those who would do us harm. He promised to pursue the terrorists, and advocated for a strong, well-equipped military. Another of the biggest cheers Obama received was when he proclaimed outright that he would end the genocide in Darfur, which, presumably, would involve U.S. military action in that country (if asking nicely would stop it, it would have already stopped). I think the crowd might have reacted differently if Obama had yelled out "I'm going to invade the Sudan !", but whatever. Obama has also mentioned redeploying troops to Afghanistan, and has said he would strike Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence on terrorists in that country. To take Obama at his word, there is a separation between him and the 'Department Of Peace' Dennis Kucinich, or the non-interventionist foreign policy of Ron Paul. Obama again promised to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends, and he quoted JFK by saying "never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate". Take that, Hillary.

Obama correctly claimed that leadership involves "telling people the things they don't want to hear", but ironically, nearly everyhthing this populist presidential contender told the crowd was EXACTLY what it wanted to hear. Nary a word was said about the coming fiscal tsunami of Medicare debt as the baby boomers retire, for instance, or an empty Social Security Trust Fund full of worthless IOU's for those same boomers. Addressing those issues involves very hard choices. In other words, they are a bummer, and what Obama peddles is H-O-P-E. He must have said that word 50 times, along with many intonations of the word 'change', naturally.

Obama played to the crowd for another big cheer when, in a 'master of the obvious' moment, he mentioned that George Bush wouldn't be president after 2008. He also said he was embarassed to find out he was a distant relative of VP Dick Cheney, lamenting that he'd rather be related to "someone cool" instead. (Hey, since when isn't Darth Vader cool ?).

Obama peddles hope, but like many politicians before him, he has to tell you how screwed up everything is first, so there will be: 1) somebody to blame (Republicans), 2) something to hope for (an Obama presidency), and 3) something to change into (liberal policies). His litany of american problems was long indeed. Among those he mentioned were: the Iraq war, expensive health care, lack of health care insurance, jobs going overseas, failing schools, inadequate veteran benefits, low teacher pay, CEO's making too much money, disappearing pensions, predatory lending, high cost college loans, tax cuts for the wealthy, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, special interests, unfair trade agreements, tax breaks for corporations, an unfair tax system, melting polar ice caps (actually, only one is melting. The other is expanding), dependence on foreign oil, corporate profits (this is a problem ?), and excessive greenhouse gases. I'm sure I'm leaving several other problems off this list.

Like most liberals, Obama's solutions to problems invariably involve government intervention, which translate specifically to two things: 1) Tax, and 2) Spend. Obama proposes tax increases (but only for the rich). He actually proposed a $1,000 tax rebate for everyone making $75,000 and under. He also proposed tax breaks for companies that keep jobs in the United States, and tax penalties for those who don't (I like that idea, but I don't really believe Obama about the 'tax breaks' part. It flies in the face of other parts of his rhetoric regarding corporations, as you shall soon see). As for spending, Barack Obama has proposed approximately $874 billion in new spending, according to people who keep track of those things (link to the Obama Spendometer). When it comes to federal spending, Barack Obama has a whole lot in common with the big spending George W. Bush, which makes Obama's claim to "fiscal responsibility" ring hollow to a fiscal conservative like myself. The federal budget has expanded by roughly a trillion dollars in 8 short years during the Bush reign (this is what I call 'THE PROBLEM'). Obama appears determined to easily match or exceed that number if he takes the helm (what I call 'MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE').

Now for Obama's scariest comments of the day, which were regarding corporate america. First, Obama said "I like capitalism, but when CEO's make so much more than workers, something's not right" (this is a paraphrase of what Obama actually said. I can't decipher my own scribbled notes here). Later, Obama said, "It won't be easy to take all those profits away from Exxon-Mobil". Obama also talked about "economic fairness and equality".

Is anyone catching the drift here ? Under what system is Obama allowed to take Exxon's profits away ? Under what system is he allowed to control who earns what wages ? Under what system is there "economic fairness and equality ?". It sure isn't the free market capitalist system. No wonder Obama said "I like capitalism, but…". Judge for yourself what level of government control would be necessary to implement Obama's wishes. This is why I said I didn't believe in Obama's statement about cutting taxes for corporations. Five minutes later, he is talking about practically taking them over.

I'm probably sounding like a harsher Obama critic than I actually am. I liked some of what he had to say. He stressed individual responsibility (which sounds weird to me coming from such a big government advocate, but at least he said it), and he said change cannot come from him alone, but must come from the bottom up, from the people themselves, who must get involved.

He also proposed a $4,000 college tuition credit in return for a year of some type of national service, but I was thinking, couldn't college kids earn a whole lot more than $4,000 by just working in a regular job to payoff their college loans ? That proposal didn't make much sense to me. Other Obama solutions to problems were: $10 million fund to avoid home foreclosures, adjust minimum wage every year for inflation, give everyone access to the same health care as congress with subsidies for those who can't afford it by the end of his first term, reduce greenhouse gases by 80%, raise car mileage to 40-50mpg, invest in alternative energy…

It was also apparent that Obama is hearing his critics, who accuse him of being too inexperienced and too non-specific. He said he makes no apologies for being able to "speak good" (rimshot), claimed that "the right judgement is what counts" (take that again, Hillary), and that his twenty years of experience as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and legislator counts as well.

Well, that's about all I've got. This reporter is over and out. Back to you, Katie.

Oh, I should add that when Obama left the building, his feet WERE touching the ground. The second coming of the messiah may still be a ways off.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, had a decision to make last week. Should she bring the new FISA bill to the floor for a vote, where it would certainly pass and be signed into law immediately by President Bush, or should she prevent the bill from being voted upon, thereby allowing the Protect America Act to expire, weakening our country's ability to gather intelligence against foreign terrorist groups like Al Qaeda ?

It seems obvious that Pelosi should have chosen the democratic way and allowed the vote, but she didn't. Now Congress is on vacation and our intelligence capabilities are diminished. The question is, why would Pelosi do that ? The outward sticking point for Pelosi and pals is that they resisted giving telecom companies immunity from lawsuits for providing information to the government about Al Qaeda. Dozens of such lawsuits have been filed already, and granting retroactive immunity for these companies would kill them. If it sounds odd to you that companies would be sued for helping the government fight Al Qaeda following 9/11, it sounds odd to me as well.

If any of you think Pelosi didn't allow the vote due to 4th amendment concerns, you haven't been paying much attention. If the Democratic Congress was concerned about the 4th amendment, they would't have passed the Protect America Act to begin with, the new FISA bill wouldn't have passed the Senate, and they wouldn't have pushed for the recent 21 day extension. If the new FISA bill was a 4th amendment violation, so were all of those things. No, this wasn't about the Constitution at all. This was about something much more important to the Democratic leadership, something apparently more important than national security even…

Money.

You see, the number one contributor to Democratic political campaigns is trial lawyers. These are the very same trial lawyers who are looking to score some very big bucks by suing those telecom companies. From a Bob Novak column, called Torts And Terrorism, comes this:

Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiff's lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.

It's as simple as that. Monkey lawyers pay, monkey Congress do. Democrats know they have weakened our intelligence capabilities. One Democrat who is definitely in the know, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, warned his party colleagues of that very thing:

“What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Floor Remarks, 02/14/08)

The Democratic leadership didn't care. They didn't care about us as a country. They just didn't want to alienate their biggest contributors, the lawyers (No wonder Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are all lawyers). This isn't a condemnation of the entire Democratic party, only the leadership and the majority view. The minority moderate Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, supported the new FISA bill, which is why it certainly would have passed when combined with near unanimous Republican support.

Thanks for nothing, Nancy Pelosi. You put special interests first, and our country second.

Enjoy your vacation.

When I heard that the Comptroller General and head of the Government Accounting Office (GAO), David Walker, has resigned, I had to write about it. Walker was one of my favorite guys in government, probably due to the fact that he's not a politician. He was the chief accountant for the federal government. He's beholden to no political party. Walker was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998, and continued serving through the Bush administration until now.

Because David Walker is not a politician, he doesn't engage in political spin. Instead, he has the refreshing habit of telling the plain, unvarnished truth. You can hear him tell some of the truth on Glenn Beck's show here. Please watch the video before you read the rest of this column.

The unspun truth about the state of the federal government's finances is pretty disturbing, and paints a pretty grim picture of america's future, which is why politicians like to cover it up. The politicians who cover it up the most are those politicians who intend to pursue the same irresponsible fiscal policies that led us this far off the rails. You can tell these politicians by their lingo. They tell you they want to raise taxes and increase government spending dramatically, although they use code words to disguise those facts. For instance, they'll talk about "investing" in this or that government program. They think you are too stupid to realize that means raising taxes and increasing government spending. If you elect these politicians, you prove them right. You ARE too stupid. When the government gives you "free stuff", it isn't free at all. YOU pay for it.

What David Walker knows is that unrestrained government spending and the expansion of entitlements is going to bankrupt this country. That is the bottom line, and that is what the pro-big government pols don't want you to know. This is an enormous issue, and we have two presidential candidates in the Democratic party who not only don't want to acknowledge it, they want to ADD MULTIPLE NEW ENORMOUS ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS TO THE ALREADY STAGGERING COMING ENTITLEMENT TSUNAMI. Our financial house is on fire and they want to throw more wood on the blaze. This is irresponsibility on an unprecedented level (okay, maybe not unprecedented. Bush's liberal spending spree threw wood on that fire too). I'm not sure if the Republican presidential candidate understands the enormity of the fire either, but at least he's not chopping up more kindling to throw on.

As David Walker points out, every year we don't act drives us $2-3 trillion deeper in the hole, which already stands at $56 trillion. Do you see any politicians talking about it ? Facing it ? Or do you see politicians promising people the moon instead ? That type of feel-good politics does every one of us a disservice, but the disservice it does to us is nothing compared to what it will do to our children. These chuckleheaded pols actually call you selfish if you resist all this entitlement expansion, and they have over half the country brainwashed into thinking the same way. That takes some real chutzpah, because what is truly selfish is burdening future generations with the tab for OUR spendthrift ways. We want to ride the gravy train and let our sons and daughters pay for it. What could be more selfish than that ?

Reuter's reports that David Walker has resigned to head up the newly formed Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Walker said, "As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, there are real limitations on what I can do and say in connection with key public policy issues, especially issues that directly relate to GAO's client — the Congress. My new position will provide me with the ability and resources to more aggressively address a range of current and emerging challenges facing our country."

I look forward to hearing from him. Somebody in this country has to start dealing with reality, unless we are ready to forfeit the american dream and all start wearing Che t-shirts instead. I'm not even close to ready for that. How about you ?

Thursday was supposed to be a day when the House Of Representatives worked on the updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has already passed the Senate. The existing bill, the Protect America Act, passed last august, expires at midnight on saturday, february 16th. Rather than working on anything so mundane as protecting americans from terrorists, the House Democrats decided instead to vote on contempt charges for White House officials Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for not appearing before Congress on the Democrats fishing expedition investigation into the White House firing of U.S. attorneys. Minority leader John Boehner led Republicans in a House walkout in protest. Boehner said:

"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us…Let's just get up and leave."

Indeed.

A few words about the so-called investigation into those U.S. attorney firings, which has been going on for over a year now. Those attorneys SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. He appoints them and he can fire them, as presidents regularly do. For example, Bill Clinton fired 92 of the 93 U.S. attorneys, including some who were investigating BILL CLINTON. I can't tell you what a big investigation there was into that. Oh wait, yes I can tell you. There WASN'T any big investigation into that. But somehow, when Bush fires 9 U.S. attorneys, THAT is a big deal, and was done for some dark machiavellian political reasons. There isn't any evidence, but shoot, who needs evidence to conduct a witchhunt ? Not the Democrats. Since they took control of Congress in 2006, investigating all things Bush has been Job One.

Back on topic, Congress has had SIX MONTHS to pass a permanent terrorist surveillance bill, and both sides of the aisle claim to want to get it done (one side even means it). But here we are on the eve of the bill's expiration, and nothing has happened yet. I guess the high drama of watching baseball star Roger Clemens deny HGH and steroid usage is more important to the House than our national security. Maybe next week Cirque Du Soleil can testify before the House regarding highwire safety regulations, or Paris Hilton can testify about what it's like to be born filthy rich (apparently, "it's hot"). Enquiring minds want to know.

So, after twiddling their thumbs for all this time, and after attempting to kick the can down the road by passing a 21-day extension of the terrorist surveillance bill, which the Republicans shot down, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said this:

"The first step must be reconciliation of the two bills…If the president wants to work together on that — we have been trying mightily to get the administration to engage."

Let me translate that for you. Bush backs the version of the bill that the Senate has already passed. His position is crystal clear on this subject. Always has been. The sticking point here is NOT Bush, it's NOT the Senate - it's Pelosi and company. So naturally, Nancy has to make it SEEM as if it IS Bush, because partisanship is what matters most. I can't wait for president Barack Obama to come along and change all this nonsense. Yes we can ! Oh, brother.

What Pelosi's Pals want to do is strip telecom immunity from lawsuits out of the bill. In other words, if a telephone company cooperates with the government and provides phone records for international Al Qaeda suspects, the ACLU should be able to sue the pants off that telephone company, enriching lawyers, protecting the 4th amendment, and protecting Al Qaeda, er, I mean, the people. The White House insists it may need private sector cooperation with the government for future terrorist investigations. Someone over at the White House must be living in that place known as the REAL WORLD.

Congenital liar Harry Reid (D-NV) also tried to blame it all on Bush, by saying:

"Your [Bush's] opposition to an extension is inexplicable..Nonetheless, you have chosen to let the Protect America Act expire. You bear responsibility for any intelligence collection gap that may result."

Is that rich, or what ? The House has had all this time to pass the bill, at the last minute they decide to vote on something else, and Reid doesn't think the Democrats bear any responsibility for it. Good thing we don't count on old Harry the Senate Majority Leader for leadership or anything. Unbelievable.

Here's one final strange, self-contradictory comment from Pelosi:

"We are trying to pass a bill that protects the American people and protects the Constitution…We know the president has the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the American people in the interim."

Mrs. Pelosi, I have a question. If the president has "the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the american people" already, why would there be a need for you to "pass a bill that protects the american people" at all ? Hmmm ?

Someone's pants are on fire.

You can read an Assocated Press story about this pathetic fiasco here.

Yesterday, the Senate passed H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008. The Act included a ban on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. It passed by a vote of 51 to 45, with 4 not voting. The vote was largely upon partisan lines, with Democrats voting for the ban and Republicans voting against it. Here is a roll call of the Senate vote.

Among our senatorial presidential candidates, John McCain voted against the ban. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were 2 of the 4 senators who did not vote. McCain's vote is interesting, because in the past he has come out against waterboarding. McCain could have other reasons for voting against H.R. 2082, since it is also an appropriations act, but at first glance, this sure looks like a position reversal by McCain, which almost certainly will be reported as him caving to the conservative base (a curious move, since he already has the Republican nomination in the bag). The Obama and Clinton non-votes are also interesting, because they didn't take a position on a controversial issue and a close vote. At least McCain cast a vote, even if it does open him up to charges of waffling. Obama and Clinton didn't show any leadership. You can bet "scheduling conflicts" will be the reported reason for their absence. I can't say as I blame Obama too much from a tactical standpoint here. Not being "on the record" has served him fabulously well in his presidential campaign of soaring rhetoric. I assume if he does become president, he will henceforth become "present and accounted for". Leadership is a nice quality for a president.

The White House has long said it would veto this type of legislation, with president Bush saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.” Bush's problem is, waterboarding isn't looking all that legal these days. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners. It limits interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army Field Manual, which doesn't include waterboarding. The justice department also said it doubts that waterboarding is legal now.

At this time, waterboarding is still technically an option available to the CIA, but it requires the consent of the Attorney General and the president on a case-by-case basis. CIA chief Michael Hayden says waterboarding has not been used since 2003. Hayden also says he prohibited waterboarding as a CIA technique in 2006, doubting it's legality in light of the new laws. Bush's position is weak and getting weaker.

The Democrats outcry against harsh interrogation techniques by the Bush administration has resonated far and wide these days, with tons of partisan rhetoric being bandied about, but back in 2002, the Democrats were singing a very different tune. At that time, so close to the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, the Democrats who were briefed on the interrogation techniques were not only supportive of waterboarding and other harsh techniques, they even wanted more done to extract the needed information about future Al Qaeda attacks from high level Al Qaeda detainees, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (one of the 3 who were ever waterboarded by the CIA). You can read a Washington Post article about it here. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was one of those briefed. From that article comes the following:

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

How times change, eh ? Or, perhaps I should say, how politics change. Opponents of waterboarding say that the world isn't an episode of 24, with Jack Bauer running out of time to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. They are correct. 99.9% of the time is isn't.

But .1% of the time it IS. And what do we do then, after harsh interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by law, when the needed information is paramount ? Do we tell someone like Khalid Shakh Mohammed that if he tells us what we need to know, we'll give him a cookie ? It's probably more likely that someone in the CIA would break the law anyway, if the information was important enough, don't you think ? Then the Democrats can prosecute that someone for saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of americans, because he poured water down the next Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nose. So I'd vote nay on that ban. I would leave it with waterboarding requiring the express approval of the attorney general and the president on a case-by-case basis, that would stop it from being abused, but I wouldn't ban it altogether, whether you want to call it torture or not. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, as Mr. Spock would say.