When two 20-year olds posing as a pimp and a prostitute were able to bring down ACORN by getting multiple ACORN offices to assist them in setting up a would-be prostitution ring for underage girls from El Salvador, I thought to myself, 'wouldn't it be nice if we had professional organizations in this country that could root out corruption like that ?' Then we wouldn't have to depend upon college kids to do it. We could call such professionals, say, journalists. But, alas, all we have is the Lame Stream Media. You can find the audios, videos, and transcripts of ACORN's prosititution facilitating at biggovernment.com.

ACORN, btw, is an acronym. I think it stands for Association of Criminal Organizations for statutory Rape Now. Or something like that.

Until the Senate and the House of Representatives both voted overwhelmingly to cut off ACORN's federal funding, our Lame Stream Media was never interested in ACORN's shenanigans. As ACORN was being investigated across the country for voter registration fraud, as ACORN was breaking into houses they didn't own and taking them over, and as ACORN falsely poses as a non-partisan organization to get federal funding in the first place, our media pretended not to notice. Nothing to see here. Now, however, even the execrable, er, I mean, venerable New York Times has taken notice.

If you want to find out how extensive ACORN's voter registration fraud is, google 'ACORN voter registration fraud,' and then peruse a few of the 194,000 hits you get back from the search. The internet has been on the case, even if the Lame Stream Media has not. Nearly one-third of the over 1.3 million ballots ACORN registered for the 2008 election were rejected. Nothing newsworthy there, according to the Lames.

The Senate voted 83-7 to stop funding ACORN. The House voted 345-75 to stop funding ACORN. ALL votes to keep funding ACORN came from Democrats (further illustrating exactly how non-partisan ACORN is NOT).

ACORN has also been removed from participating in the 2010 Census.

ACORN has put out a laughable variety of ever-changing excuses for the actions of their employees on the prosititution videos. ACORN said the videos were fake, and then ACORN fired some of the employees on those "fake" videos, as if that makes any sense whatsoever. That would be firing them for something they didn't do. Later, ACORN claimed their employees were just playing along. Then, as sure as night follows day, ACORN blamed it on RACISM (will liberals EVER stop this ?). Here's ACORN Chief Organizer, Bertha Lewis:

The relentless attacks on ACORN’s members, its staff and the policies and positions we promote are unprecedented. An international entertainment conglomerate, disguising itself as a “news” agency (Fox), has expended millions, if not tens of millions of dollars, in their attempt to destroy the largest community organization of Black, Latino, poor and working class people in the country. It is not coincidence that the most recent attacks have been launched just when health care reform is gaining traction. It is clear they’ve had these tapes for months.

We are their Willy Horton for 2009. We are the boogeyman for the right-wing and its echo chambers. If ACORN did not exist, the right-wing would have needed to create us in order to achieve their agenda, their missions, their ideal, retrograde America. This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we’ve all recently seen. I am appalled and angry; I cannot and I will not defend the actions of the workers depicted in the video, who have since been terminated. But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist “filmmaker” O’Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was – our lawyers believe a felony – and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators.

For the record, millions of dollars were not spent to bring down ACORN. The two 20-year olds who shot the prosititution videos spent $1,300 total (according to them), and they didn't work for Fox News either. The real story here is why the rest of the Lame Stream Media DIDN'T cover ACORN's ongoing corrupt and criminal activities for all this time. Btw, Bertha Lewis didn't sound very non-partisan there, did she ? The right-wing's desire for an " ideal, retrograde America" ?? I'm not even sure what that means, but it doesn't sound very nice.

FYI – You can listen to the full audio of the ACORN prostitution tapes at the previous biggovernment.com link. There was no doctoring of the videos, as Lewis claims. The videos portrayed the situation accurately. Lewis is literally saying, 'who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes ?' It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

"We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama" – Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

"I owe these unions." – Barack Obama

Obama hasn't forgotten he owes the unions, who were instrumental in getting him elected President. In his first two weeks in office, Obama issued three pro-union executive orders. In his third week in office, he issued a fourth pro-union executive order. The fortune spent spent by the SEIU to elect Obama ($60 million, according to the SEIU) has gained the union access to power. A number of SEIU officials have been named to the Obama team. Anna Burger, SEIU secretary-treasurer, was appointed to Obama's economic recovery board. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is a former SEIU executive. The unions also scored big when one of the most pro-union voices in the House of Representatives, Hilda Solis (D-CA), was named as Obama's Labor Secretary. The aforementioned SEIU President, Mr. Stern, says he visits the White House weekly, and has influence over issues from the stimulus package to health care reform to immigration. "We get heard," boasted Stern.

Vice President Joe Biden made no secret of the fact that Obama's stimulus package was aimed at boosting union jobs.

“We're going to make sure that in every policy, every decision, we don't lose sight of the folks that brought us to the dance,” [Biden] said — a reference to organized labor’s support of the Obama-Biden ticket. “And toward that end, we have to make sure that the jobs we're creating come with fair wages and decent benefits.”

Biden focused on the stimulus package, noting it will send taxpayer money through the pipeline to union jobs and specifically those in the building trades unions. "The focus of this administration the first month has been to rebuild American roads, bridges, waterways — jobs for the building trades union,” he said.

The stimulus package producing union jobs doesn't sound so bad, until you realize that only 12.5% of Americans workers are unionized. Where does that leave the other 87.5% of Americans ? Out in the cold. In addition, 84% of construction jobs are non-union. They aren't getting any help from Obama/Biden either. And those higher union wages for "shovel-ready" stimulus projects come directly from the pockets of the American taxpayers, not that our federal government ever gives a whit about them.

Btw, Obama has just announced that he's seeking a 2% pay raise for federal employees in 2010. That would be the federal employees unions, the teachers union, etc. That will cost the taxpayers roughly $20 billion more. While the rest of the workforce is losing jobs, getting their hours cut, and getting their paychecks reduced due to the recession, government employees roll merrily along and get their pay hikes, just as Congress did back in january (a $4,700 annual pay increase). The federal government spits directly in the face of the taxpayers at virtually every turn, and we just sit back and take it.

Now, it has come to light that the House health care bill, H.R. 3200, contains $10 billion to fund union retirees.

Greg Mourad of the National Right to Work Committee called it "a shameless case of political payback," saying Democrats and President Barack Obama are trying "to force the rest of us to pay billions to cover those unions' health care."

Big labor, primarily the UAW, thinks they didn't get ENOUGH taxpayer dollars from H.R. 3200. Incredible. Like we haven't bailed out the UAW enough already. With the taxpayer tab for the auto company bailouts running near $100 billion, Big Labor wants yet more and more, even after the unions emerged with large ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler following those companies highly politicized bankruptcy proceedings that rewarded the unions far in excess of investors. The unions will own 39% of GM, and 55% of Chrysler.

The upshot of all this is crystal clear – If you want something from the federal government, just buy the politicians. Same as it ever was.

Change You Can Believe In……..my butt.

"When special interests put their thumb on the scale, and distort the free market, the people who compete by the rules come in last." – Barack Obama, August 2008.

I guess we can throw that quote out in the trash with the others.

- One nice thing about Bill Clinton's presidency was that you could oppose his policies without being called a racist (mostly).

- People who think Bush went into Iraq to enrich Halliburton have no right to complain about the Birthers.

- When you go looking for "code words" for racism, aren't you just making stuff up ?

- When I talk about Obama's huge first year deficit ($1.8 trillion) on this blog, why do liberals always bring up Bush's deficits to excuse Obama's ? (Note to libs – By doing that, you aren't countering my argument. You are only making the argument that Obama is worse than Bush).

- Obama can offer health insurance to 30-45 million more people with health care reform, or he can reduce health care costs, but he can't do both at the same time.

- Obama's health care reform offers less choice, not more choice.

- Only Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

- Why is it that when liberals call conservatives racists nearly non-stop, nothing ever happens to those liberals, but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist one time, 20 advertisers are pressured into dropping their ads from Beck's show ?

- The only point being made by those people who are carrying guns outside events at which the President is speaking is that the gun carriers are oblivious morons.

- Is there any doubt at all that House Democrats are seeking the financial records of health insurance companies in order to demonize those companies ?

- Why is it okay for Congress to buy private jets with taxpayer dollars, but it's not okay for CEO's to fly private jets to Washington D.C. after being bailed out with taxpayer dollars ?

- Why would we want the federal government, an organization that is nearly $12 trillion in debt (and counting), to run our health care system, which represents 17% of our economy ?

- The "Obama is Hitler" signs must stop, because Obama is not like Hitler – he's much more like a combination of Saul Alinsky and P.T. Barnum. (Note to liberal media – that Obama-Hitler "I've Changed" sign you idiots at MSNBC, NBC, and CNN keep attributing to right wingers came from a Lyndon Larouche group, a communist group. Is even a tiny bit of journalistic integrity too much to ask ?)

- Speaking of Saul Alinsky, doesn't Obama's playbook seem awfully close to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it) ?

- MSNBC is such a biased organization that they actually edited out the fact that it was a black man who was carrying the AR-15 outside an Obama event, so MSNBC could peddle it's racist angle to the story.

- In the interesting political poll of the week, Gallup polling showed that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one when it comes to political ideology, yet Democrats have a sizeable lead over Republicans in party affiliation. (In other words, conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. I can identify with that).

- If you want to know why the health care public option was in, then it was out, then it was back in again….it's because up to 100 House Democrats said it better be back in again.

Barney Frank (D-VT) wants the federal government to decide how much Wall Street executives (and all other executives of private companies) are paid. Barney also wants the government to decide how they are paid. Legislation to ban incentive-based pay for private corporations has been approved by the House Financial Services Committee.

I don't know where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government thinks it obtains the authority to do this, but, hey, we don't use that musty old Constitution thingy anymore anyway. The notion of limiting centralized governmental power (federalism) envisioned by the founding fathers is as outdated as bell bottomed jeans. These days, we seem to be climbing all over ourselves to give the federal government all the power it wants (totalitarianism). The statists are on the march, making all the same false promises the statists always make, the false promises that never quite seem to materialize (FYI – health care reform = forcing all Americans to buy health care insurance and then having the government determine what medical procedures you are allowed to have, in case you haven't figured that out yet).

Here is Barney's rationale for limiting executive pay:

"The problem with executive compensation is essentially, from the systemic standpoint, that it gives perverse incentives," said Frank, a Democrat. Without penalties for bad bets, the system means "heads you win, tails you break even," he said.

Perverse incentives. That means people shouldn't be rewarded for driving their companies into the ground. They should be held accountable instead. I think we can all agree with that, if not with the idea that the federal government should dictate people's salaries. That is so……Soviet.

Let's continue with these ideas of accountability and perverse incentives. As of July 31st, 2009, the federal debt stood at $11,617,400,889,464.57. That's over $11.6 trillion. As soon as I write these words, they are outdated, because the national debt is now higher. The debt has increased by $3.89 billion PER DAY since September 2007. In addition, the federal government is projected to run nearly a $2 trillion deficit in 2009. We paid $451 billion in interest on the federal debt in 2008. This year it will be much higher. The interest on the debt is money flushed down the toilet (or sent to a foreign government, like China) that could easily pay for any imaginable health care reform we could dream up. Instead, our federal government has burdened every American citizen with roughly $38,000 in debt. The federal government is the poster child for incompetence.

This means the federal government, if viewed as a corporation (FedCorp), would be the worst run corporation in the entire history of the world (with the possible exception of those defunct Soviets we're trying to emulate). So, how are we holding FedCorp accountable ? Why, we're about to hand the entire health care system over to them !!! We're going to reward the worst company ever, FedCorp, by handing it control over 16% more of our economy. Talk about perverse incentives. This is equivalent to handing the entire energy sector over to Enron. FedCorp has shown NO ability to be responsible managers of taxpayer dollars, so, naturally, let's keep giving them ever more and more. That's the ticket. And never mind that the part of health care FedCorp already controls, Medicare/Medicaid, has such massive unfunded liabilities that it is threatening to destroy our economy down the road. If not addressed, the unfunded entitlement liabilities will hit our economy with such an economic tidal wave that the current recession will look like a ripple in a pond by comparison.

While we're on the subject of salaries, FedCorp is holding itself accountable for it's putrid mismanagement by…..giving all FedCorp's civilian employees a 2.9% pay raise in 2010. This is after Congress voted itself a 2.8% pay raise in January 2009, with the country in the depths of the recession. Apparently, accountability and perverse incentives don't apply to FedCorp, only to that horribly greedy entity known as the private sector (the sector that produces all our goods and services). FedCorp is spitting directly in your faces, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. YOU tighten your belts. THEY get raises.

There are so many examples of the federal government throwing away taxpayer dollars that I could never list them all. This post would be a thousand pages long if I tried. Go to the website YouDontKnowJack to see some examples of how just one Congressman, Jack Murtha (D-PA), aka, the King Of Pork, throws YOUR money around to his cronies and special interests. It's disgusting.

And it wasn't that much better when the Republicans were in charge. During the Bush years, with Republicans controlling Congress, government spending STILL skyrocketed. Federal spending went from $2 trillion to $3 trillion per year during Bush's tenure (and those guys were supposed to be conservatives ??? I don't think so). The only way the Bushies were conservative is if you compare them to Obama and the Democrats, who are trying to match Bush's 8-year federal spending increase total ($1 trillion) in their FIRST YEAR. If Bush was the frying pan, Obama is the fire. I find myself longing for the return of Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress. At least those guys realized the economy was EVERYTHING. Those guys look like geniuses compared to Bush and Barry, and even Clinton ran net deficits and added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Things have been so bad since then that Clinton and his GOP'ers seem like the good old days.

Our federal government is so far out of control that I barely know where to start. This post is only a drop in the bucket in trying to describe it. FedCorp is like a bunch of crack addicts with our money. They can never get enough. With an addict, there's only one cure. You have to MAKE them stop. WE have to make them stop. WE have to get rid of the whole bunch of them. WE have to vote them all out of office and start over. That's the only way WE can make a difference, the only way WE can make the federal crackheads stop. Barring that, WE are screwed. Barring that, America, the land of the free, will very soon be OVER. There is only so much money that FedCorp can spend. There are only so much taxes that FedCorp can take from us. We're on the express train to poverty as long as this continues. Wake up, America. Your country is disappearing before your very eyes.

Everyone I know thinks the federal government is corrupt, that it is overly influenced by lobbyists, big campaign contributors, and other pay-to-play arrangements. Yet, inexplicably, about half of the folks who complain about these things, we'll call them Democrats for lack of a better word, want to see ever more and more power concentrated in the hands of that same corrupt federal government. This is roughly equivalent to saying "I know cigarettes will kill me. I think I'll smoke twice as much from now on." The same Democrats who thought President Bush's warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls from suspected terrorists following 9/11 was the most egregious overstep of governmental authority since the Russian Revolution now think it's perfectly fine that the government takes over vast sectors of private industry, from health care to energy to automobile companies to finance to everything else. The same Democrats who thought Bush's annual deficit spending was horribly irresponsible (it was) now think it's perfectly fine that President Obama is doubling those Bush deficits (it isn't). I will never understand.

And the same Democrats who complained about the previous Republican "culture of corruption" under Bush are now openly courting corruption, pay-to-play, influence peddling, government meddling, and cronyism. Don't believe me ? Let's start with a how-to on buying a government position. Consider this report from opensecrets.org titled 'Barack Obama's Obscure Ambassadors Bring Experience, Campaign Cash':

To date, President Barack Obama has tapped 19 individuals to serve as ambassadors…Seventeen of these 19 ambassadors…along with their immediate family members — have contributed about $323,900 to federal candidates, committees and parties since 1989, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Moreover, both of the Cabinet-level ambassadors — Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Ron Kirk, the U.S. trade representative — bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign, according to CRP's analysis.

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro, who also has the rank of ambassador, bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's campaign — and another $290,000 for his inauguration, according to Public Citizen.

Here's another job handed to a crony, from an opensecrets.org report titled 'Philip Berg, New Ambassador To Germany, Gave Big To Democrats':

Murphy and his "homemaker" wife, Tammy, have contributed nearly $1.5 million to federal candidates, committees and parties since 1989, with 94 percent of that sum going to Democrats, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis. They also contributed an additional $100,000 to Obama's inauguration committee.

While other ambassador picks have steered more money Obama's way as bundlers, Murphy, who was not among Obama's bundlers, takes the title of being the largest personal giver to all federal candidates among nominees to date.

It's crystal clear. Want a nice cushy ambassadorship with great perks ? Cough up the cash to the right people. If you don't pony up the cash, talk to the hand.

Or consider this opensecrets.org report titled 'Newly Appointed Wall Street Investigators Are Big Campaign Contributors.' This one shows how those appointed to a bipartisan investigation of the financial crisis are big political contributors. This goes for both Democratic and Republican appointees. The "investigators" are government cronies. Do you think just maybe the investigation will conclude that the housing/financial meltdown and resulting recession was NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT ? Call me cynical, but I believe that's precisely what will happen (though because this is ObamaTime, they'll probably find something to blame Bush for, maybe all that "Bush deregulation of the financial industry" liberals are always going on about, even though that never happened).

And don't lose sight of the fact that all the cronyism I've described so far is LEGAL. So is the behavior described in this next video, in which Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talks about Gangster Government, about how who you know in government makes the difference in whether your auto dealership was closed down or allowed to stay in business during the restructing of the car companies. Pay particular attention to the first few minutes:

Rep. Bachmann mentioned all Obama's Czars. He has appointed them to oversee…well, almost everything. We have more Czar's than the Russian Empire had. Nearly three dozen by some accounts. Nobody seems to know the exact number. These Czars are non-elected officials given the tools and authority to do the bidding of the White House. They are accountable to no one except the President. They circumvent Congress. They go through no Congressional confirmation hearings, even though in some cases they oversee confirmed officials. They just…wield power. There is no transparency. Don Obama's capos.

Now, let's turn to companies buying influence in Washington D.C. It's a common misperception that the big boys contribute primarily to Republican coffers, but that isn't quite accurate. From 1989-2008, of the top twenty biggest groups donating to politicians, only three gave more to Republicans than Democrats. Fourteen gave more to Democrats than Republicans, and most gave heavily in favor of the Democrats. Three gave nearly equally to both parties. The Democratic edge comes mostly from the big unions. Corporate donors slightly favor Republicans, but most of the big corporations give to both sides, to buy influence regardless of who runs the show in D.C. They aren't stupid. They know how the game is played.

Does all that money lavished on the politicians by big business interests pay off ? You bet it does. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. For example, here we are in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years, resulting in a meltdown of the financial industry, and the fourth biggest government donator, Goldman Sachs (over $31 million donated, mostly to Democrats) just turned a nifty $1.8 billion profit for the first quarter of 2009, and an even niftier $3.4 billion profit for the second quarter. Goldman Sachs expects to have record breaking profits this year. Number thirteen on the big donor list is Citigroup, Inc. (over $26.4 million donated, split among Dems and Republicans). They made a $4.3 billion profit for the second quarter. Number forty on the top donor list is Bank of America ($16.4 million donated, split between Dems and Repubs). They made a $2.4 billion profit in the second quarter. You may remember Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of America as being recipients of huge bailouts from the federal government. They were "too big to fail." If they went down, so would our entire financial system, allegedly.

Is YOUR business doing as well ? Did YOUR business get bailed out ? Does the government give a tinker's damn if YOUR business fails ? Didn't think so.

Maybe John Edwards was right about there being two Americas. He just had his definitions wrong.

The first America is the gangster government/financial giant class. They are one and the same, but the financial giants must pay protection money to the gangster government, or they risk being cut out of the scam.

The second America is everyone else. The marks. The ones who pay for it all.

Soooo, again, why is it that about half of Americans, we'll call them Democrats for lack of a better word, are in favor of ever MORE and MORE of this corrupt government ???? Are they just hoping to get initiated into the gang, or what ?

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

This is a follow-up to the original blog piece I wrote about President Obama's firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General of the CNCS, the watchdog over Americorps and other national service groups.

It's looking more and more like a political hit job.

From the Washington Examiner:

Walpin had certainly displeased the board by his aggressive investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Prior to his election as mayor, Johnson ran an educational organization called St. HOPE, which received $850,000 in AmeriCorps money. Walpin discovered that Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."

Walpin recommended that Johnson be banned from ever receiving any more federal funds. But after the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill, amid worries that such a ban on the mayor would keep Sacramento from receiving its share of the stimulus cash, the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service reached an agreement with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento under which Johnson would repay some of the mis-spent money and also be eligible to receive new federal grants in the future. Walpin strongly objected to the agreement. (Knowing his opposition, the board excluded him from the negotiations.)

Walpin's objections were the subject of a now-controversial May 20 meeting in which Walpin, to use his term, "lectured" the board on what he believed was its mistake in approving the Johnson settlement. On the morning of the meeting, the Sacramento Bee reported that a man named Rick Maya, who worked with Kevin Johnson in the St. HOPE project, claimed that Johnson's emails had been deleted during the time of Walpin's investigation. The Maya news suggested that there might have been obstruction of justice in the St. HOPE affair, and Walpin used it to drive home his point that the board should have let his investigation stand.

It appears the discussion of the St. HOPE matter was a turning point not only in the May 20 meeting but in Walpin's tenure at the Corporation. In a recent interview, a Republican member of the Corporation board told me that Walpin told board members at the meeting that he wanted to issue some sort of public statement to the effect that there should be more investigation of the St. HOPE matter. "He said, 'I feel so strongly about this that today I am going to issue a statement to the press calling for further investigation,'" the member said, recalling Walpin's words. "The board members all caught that. Several of us wrote down that he was going to be issuing a statement to the press that afternoon."

It was a distressing scenario for the board. As a favorite program of Barack and Michelle Obama, AmeriCorps was enjoying a higher profile than ever before. The Corporation also stood to receive vast amounts of new funding from the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which would triple the size of AmeriCorps. And in the midst of that, here was the agency's inspector general saying he might re-open an investigation into an embarrassing episode involving hundreds of thousands of mis-spent dollars and a politically prominent supporter of the president.

"Right now, when there is such a great emphasis on service, we did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told me. "We thought he was going to use the press…He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached…and he was doing everything he could to continue to keep the issue at the forefront."

Later in the meeting, members questioned Walpin about his intentions. It was at that point that they say Walpin became confused and disoriented. But whatever Walpin's demeanor, it appears that board members, of both parties, were worried about the possibility of embarrassing new revelations involving a sensational case they thought had been closed. After the meeting, the board began an accelerated effort to remove Walpin, compiling an informal list of grievances against him — he could be difficult, he telecommuted, he was somehow disabled — that the White House would ultimately cite as cause for his firing. But there is no doubt that, whatever the other reasons, the board feared that a revival of a scandal they thought was in the past would be embarrassing to the newly-prominent AmeriCorps.

Sounds like the board might have gotten together to manufacture some reasons to get Walpin fired because they were afraid he'd go to the press, and that's when they decided Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented," among other things. They wanted to dump him because he was a thorn in their side and was going to expose the St. Hope "settlement" (free pass).

As further evidence, 147 people, both Democrats and Republicans, have signed a letter to Congress attesting to the soundness of Walpin's mental state. Here's an excerpt from that letter:

We have known Gerald Walpin as a leading member of the New York Bar for many years. Many of us have seen him and heard him speak, including at this month's meeting of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference and last week's meeting of the Board of the Federal Bar Council.

We have never seen Mr. Walpin to be "confused, disoriented, [or] unable to answer questions." While none of us was present at the meeting referred to in Mr. Eisen's letter, we can report only that such an allegation is totally inconsistent with our personal knowledge of Mr. Walpin who has always, through the present day, exhibited a quick mind and a command of the facts (whether we agree with him or not) and eloquence – essentially the opposite of someone who is "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions."

We note that the signers of this letter include both Democrats and Republicans, voters for both President Obama and Senator McCain, and many who do not agree with Mr. Walpin's personal political views. But all of us are unanimous in affirming Mr. Walpin's integrity and competence.

If it matters, and it shouldn't, Mr. Walpin calls himself a conservative.

Message to Geral Walpin – don't mess with the President's pet projects and friends, peon, or you'll be crushed under the wheels of the Hopenchange Express.

P.S. – As of this writing, the twelve questions Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IOWA) wanted answered by June 24th about Walpin's firing have NOT been answered by the White House.

P.P.S – The FBI is investigating St. Hope and Kevin Johnson for obstructing the investigation into the misappropriation of funds (the obstruction was one of Walpin's biggest objections to the settlement).

In 2006, President Bush fired eight U.S. Attorneys. It was within the rights of the executive branch to fire those attorneys, who serve at the pleasure of the President. Bush did not have to give a reason or provide cause to fire them. Following those firings, there have been 2 1/2 years of accusations, scandal, and investigations of the Bush administration. The investigations continue to this day.

Then the great CHANGE occurred, and Barack Obama became President Of The United States. Things would be different now. No longer would people be hired or fired for political reasons.

And then Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General Of The Corporation For National And Community Sevice (he was the watchdog over Americorps and other national service organizations). It was Mr. Walpin's job to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and that's what he did. Among other mishandlings of taxpayer funds he ferreted out, in 2008 Walpin discovered that St. Hope Academy had misused a large share of over $800,000 it had received in taxpayer funds. The CEO of St. Hope Academy was Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and big-time Obama supporter. Johnson and St. Hope were barred from receving further federal funds. So far so good. Things were working as they should. You defraud the taxpayers, you pay the price. Walpin was doing his job.

Then, on April 9, 2009, the Acting U.S. Attorney for California's Eastern District, Lawrence G. Brown, cut Kevin Johnson a deal. Here are some of the details:

Acting United States Attorney Lawrence G. Brown announced today that St. HOPE Academy has agreed to pay $423,836.50 to settle allegations that St. HOPE did not appropriately spend AmeriCorps grant awards and education awards in accordance with the terms of grant requirements and did not adequately document its expenditures of grant awards. The amount of the civil settlement represents one-half of the $847,673 in AmeriCorps grant funds received by St. HOPE Academy…The lifting of the suspension against all parties, including Mayor Johnson, removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented from receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Brown…St. HOPE will make an initial payment of $73,836.50 by electronic transfer within five business days from today…Kevin Johnson will pay $72,836.50 of the initial payment by St. HOPE, with possible repayment to Johnson by St. HOPE when it is financially able to do so…St. HOPE has entered into a stipulated judgment for $350,000.00, plus five percent annual interest, payable at $35,000 annually for 10 years.

Let's put this into perspective. Kevin Johnson and St. Hope Academy bilked the taxpayers out of over $400,000. Their penalty ? Pay it back, and they get 10 years to do it. That's it. No further punishment, and their right to receive more taxpayer money is restored. Do any readers out there think they'd get a similar deal for defrauding over $400,000 ? No, me neither. It's good to have friends in high places, and Kevin Johnson certainly has them. And if you noticed, Kevin Johnson ends up paying NOTHING out of his pocket. He gets reimbursed for the money he pays back, even though the original misspent Americorps funds included personal services performed for Kevin Johnson. Even worse, St. Hope Academy is a NON-PROFIT organization, so their future funding, the money they will use to PAY BACK the money they defrauded the taxpayers out of, will come from FUTURE TAXPAYER MONEY endowed upon them by Barack Obama (who, btw, increased Americorps funding by $5 billion, because, you know, the American economic situation is SO GOOD right now. That's Obama's idea of fiscal responsibility).

When Gerald Walpin found out about the sweet deal that Kevin Johnson and St. Hope Academy received for their criminal behavior, he objected in a May 13, 2009 letter to Congress that the settlment reeked of impropriety. Walpin urged Congress to act.

It appears Walpin ruffled the wrong feathers, the feathers of power, because Walpin was fired. He received a phone call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Reform, notifying him that he had one hour to resign or be canned. Walpin, who had not only finished a report on misuse of funds by St. Hope, but who had also just finished a report of misuse of funds by the City University Of New York, Americorps biggest program, told Eisen he thought the timing of his firing was "very interesting." Eisien replied that is was a "pure coincidence." Sure.

Here's the problem. Gerald Walpin didn't serve at the pleasure of the President, as did those U.S. Attorneys who were fired by George W. Bush. According to the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act (that Senator Obama CO-SPONSORED), the President must give Congress 30 days notice and a sufficient cause to fire an Inspector General. Obama had done neither, and was in violation for firing Walpin. Obama's intial explanation was that he lost confidence in Walpin, which, as Walpin himself noted "is a conclusion, not a cause."

Some members of Congress, including Democrat Claire McCaskill, objected. So did members of the conservative media. That prompted a second explanation from President Obama of why Walpin was fired, so Obama would be within the law. Eisen wrote a letter to Congress as follows:

“Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation ,” Obama ethics counsel Norm Eisen wrote in a letter to senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.), with a copy directed to McCaskill. “The Board’s action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.”

They are practically saying the 77-year old Walpin is senile. But if you read Walpin's letter to Congress in May, or his other reports on St. Hope or CUNY, he hardly seems senile. He seems quite clear and precise. He also didn't sound at all senile during a Fox News roundtable discussion on the issue.

And even if Walpin had some kind of medical problem during that May 20th meeting that affected his mental abilities, how EMPATHETIC is it for Obama to fire him over it ? Not at all. It's cold-hearted as hell. How about they recommend that Walpin go see a doctor instead ? Of course, they didn't do that, because they didn't fire Walpin for cause, they just made up a cause. They fired him for political reasons, because Walpin the watchdog was blowing the whistle in places the Obama administration didn't want it to be blown – on Obama's cronies, on Obama's pet projects. That's sure how it looks to me.

Walpin is fighting back. He refused to resign and has described Obama's alleged "cause" for firing him as "outrageous," "smears," and "total lies." Good for him.

How long do you think the investigation into the Walpin firing will be ? 2 1/2 years and counting, like the Bush attorney investigation, or ZIP ? I'm going with zip, because, you know, Obama is a Democrat, and we don't really want to waste our time investigating Democrats these days. That's "non-productive," just like it was when Congress decided there shouldn't be any investigation into Nancy Pelosi's accusation that the CIA lies to Congress all the time. Who cares if the CIA is lying ? Much ado about nothing. It's only our national security at stake. But Bush firing those attorneys, which he had every legal right to do, well, that's BIG. Somehow.

The biggest reason Nancy Pelosi's lies matter is – she's third in line to be the President of the United States. If President Obama were to become unable to serve, Vice President and Gaffemaster General Joe Biden would succeed him. After Biden, the job falls to the Speaker of the House, and that's Pelosi. After Pelosi, it goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate, 91-year old former Klansman Robert Byrd. Following Byrd is the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yikes. Biden, Pelosi, Byrd. What a cast of miscreants.

(Note to self – Contact Congressional representatives and urge them to introduce legislation to make the Secretary of State second in line to the presidency, asap.)

I have no idea how someone of Nancy Pelosi's caliber rose to such dizzying heights of power (though the 'dizzy' part fits), but I'm now a firm believer in the Peter Principle. Exhibit A – Pelosi's press conference from two days ago, where she attempts to rehab all her previous contradictory statements about waterboarding into one big contradictory statement, and also accuses the CIA of misleading Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT's):

Let's review Nancy Pelosi's many different positions on waterboarding, in chronological order:

1) She was never briefed on waterboarding.
2) She was briefed about it, but was told it wasn't being used.
3) After being confronted with information that she was briefed about the waterboarding being used against Abu Zubaydah, Pelosi said she was told the methods were legal.
4) She was told it was being used, and was against it, but there was nothing she could do about it.

Those were her positions before the above press conference. Now we can add:

5) The CIA misled her about waterboarding.

And after CIA chief Leon Panetta contradicted Pelosi by saying the CIA didn't mislead Congress and the briefers were truthful, Pelosi added:

6) She respects the CIA. It was the Bush administration that misled Congress.

And this is the same woman who wants to convene a "Truth Commission" about EIT's. How can someone as highly partisan and dishonest as Pelosi, who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the butt, who even threw in "we're creating jobs" in the middle of a press conference about waterboarding, call for a TRUTH commission ? In the same breath Pelosi calls for a Truth Commission, she states that the CIA was lying and the Bush Administration was lying. This reveals there is another name for what Pelosi wants. It's not a Truth Commission at all. It's commonly referred to as a Witch Hunt.

In addition to Pelosi, let's look at some of the other Democrats calling for a "Truth Commission." I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. Leading the charge for a Truth Commission on the Senate side are: Pat Leahy, the treasonous Senator from Vermont, and Diane Feinstein, the corrupt Senator from California.

Wonderful. A Truth Commission By Known Treasonous Corrupt Liars.

What's next ? Maybe a discussion of fiscal responsibility by the President who is running up federal deficits and debt faster than any other administration in history ??? Oh, wait, I almost forgot. That was my last post.

An Obama clone or impersonator held a townhall meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico a couple days ago and pretended to be the actual President Of The United States. The man was clearly an impostor, because listen to what he said. From Bloomberg News:

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Obviously, this is not the same Barack Obama who is running up trillions in deficits and debt faster than any other president in history, the one who is actively bringing about the very economic dampening and mortgaging of our children's futures that this phony baloney Obama is complaining about in Albuquerque. This fake Obama sounds a lot like……ME. I like the fake Obama, but c'mon, that's not the Hopenchange guy we elected. Perhaps something has happened to the real Obama, and now this impersonator has taken his place, like in that movie Dave, starring Kevin Kline.

It must have been fake Obama who reversed the real Obama's position on military commission trials for terrorists. The Bush-era military commissions are back on. Fake Obama must also be the guy who decided not to release any more terrorist abuse photos. The real Obama had no problem releasing such photos only last month, and had no problem releasing the Bush OLC memos either.

It appears fake Obama has been in charge for most of the week. We better find some people who are experts in fraud to investigate this matter………….I know !!!! Let's get ACORN to do it !!! Nobody knows more about fraud than they do. ACORN is so good at fraud that nobody can even track ACORN's financial dealings. Nobody can even tell what ACORN is doing, or what is ACORN and what isn't ACORN. They'd be perfect ! Those shadowy community organizers are just the ones to smoke out the Shadow Community Organizer In Chief. Quick, let's contact ACORN's headquarters in New Orleans, where ACORN has 270 different corporations operating out of a former funeral home. That's no lie. I told you they were good at fraud. Those ACORN voter registration fraud indictments are just the tip of the iceberg. ACORN is world class in the fraud game. They are so good that they even manage to pass themselves off as non-partisan, LOL. Can't wait till they get hold of the U.S. Census.

Wait a minute. What am I saying ?

On second thought, let's keep the real Obama away and let fake Obama run the show. Fake Obama makes a lot more sense, even if he does represent the shadow government. I might even vote for fake Obama in 2012 if he keeps making these kinds of decisions.

So let's hold off on that call to ACORN. Their number is probably unlisted anyway.

At the end of each fiscal year, the Treasury Department issues a financial report. The last such report was the 2008 Financial Report Of the United States Government. There is a link to the Citizens Guide version of the report here.

The stated 2008 deficit under President Bush was $454.8 billion. That was the largest budget deficit in American history in dollars, though President Obama's first year deficit of $1.8 trillion makes the 2008 deficit look like chump change by comparison. Every other projected Obama deficit over the next 10 years will also be larger than the 2008 largest deficit in history. Yet somehow, Obama's popularity ratings are still high. Go figure. Maybe bankruptcy is the new fiscal responsibility. I don't know. I don't get it.

But the American financial picture is much worse than those deficit numbers alone suggest. The real deficit in 2008 wasn't really $454.8 billion. It was actually much higher, because our federal government does it's accounting on a cash basis. Any debt obligations that are incurred, but have not yet paid, are treated as if they don't exist when it comes to the deficit. Those debts, however, do exist. In 2008, if you add in the debts accrued to pay federal employee and veterans benefits, the deficit balloons to over $1 trillion. If you add in all existing federal debt, we are in the red to the tune of $11 trillion. And if you add in all the accrued entitlement debts from Social Security, Medicare, and others, we are in the neighborhood of $55 trillion in the hole.

Now, imagine you are an incoming President looking at that 2008 financial report, and you can clearly see that America is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The report even states in plain English that America is on an unsustainable fiscal path. What would you do ? If your name is Barack Obama, you would….spend trillions more dollars, skyrocket the debt beyond all historical levels, permanently increase the cost of government, create an enormous new health care entitlement, and expand other entitlements. On top of that, you'd cut taxes for the middle class. In other words, if your name was Barack Obama, you'd do the most fiscally irresponsible thing imaginable. Because one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I'd say Barack Obama must be insane.

But most of the media talking heads and so-called journalists seem to think Obama is some kind of genius. They act as if he is fixing all that ails our country, even though Obama has taken an already unsustainable fiscal path and made it far more unsustainable, and he did it all in only 100 days. Therefore, most of the media must be insane too. Then the media acts like the Americans who are calling for fiscal responsibility, like the Tea Party protesters for instance, are the insane ones. The media is openly hostile to them. What gives ? What on earth has happened to our country ? It's like a mass delusion has replaced all common sense. Up has become down. Has partisan spin so replaced rational thought that we can't even add and subtract anymore ? We can't even see what is right in front of our faces ? It seems so. I can't think of another reasonable explanation.

To add insult to injury, the same folks who are putting America on course to crash and burn at warp speed say they are doing it because they are "compassionate." They are destroying the future because they "care" about the common man. Are you freaking kidding me ? Please STOP "caring" about me, oh "compassionate" ones, before all your "caring" and "compassion" leaves me penniless and shivering out on the street.

The federal government of the United States Of America is the most broke institution in the entire history of planet earth, bar none. That's what all the "caring" and "compassionate" do-gooders have brought us. We couldn't be worse off if we let the Enron executives out of jail to run this country. Bernie Madoff might as well become the next President.

Btw, the state and local governments are another $160 billion in the red for this year. The house of cards is collapsing, and our government doesn't seem to care, not one bit.

An old Temptations song had the lyric "Vote for me, and I'll set you free." That's what our politicians are doing, setting us free – from our money. The Temptations had it right. It's a ball of confusion. That's what the world is today.

Hey, hey.

Following are some news stories our esteemed mainstream media just can't manage to find time for, at least not when such pressing issues as whether or not Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has had a boob job are still under investigation. Prejean, the 21-year old liberal hate media target of the week, also had some racy Victoria's Secret modeling photos taken of her when she was 17, so it's perfectly understandable why the media missed the following stories. I imagine they are too busy working up a full-scale profile on the hypocrisy of the entire Christian movement after Miss California had the audacity to politely say she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Prejean is obviously worse than Hitler, and must be destroyed, along with that Sarah woman from Alaska. Those b's (or are they c's ?) better zip it, and go bake some cookies. This is the hope and change era, dammit. We can't have these dames going around offering their pretty little opinions, even when asked for them at a Miss USA pageant or a national Vice Presidential debate. It's not like they didn't know what they were SUPPOSED to say. If we don't put these gals in their place, before you know it, women will be running around giving all kinds of opinions about stuff, and not the always the RIGHT ones either. Who wants THAT kind of country ?

On to the news the media can't use.
—
The Obama administration has decided not to release the photos from the Scare Force One New York flyover that terrified the residents of lower Manhattan. This sets an interesting standard of what constitutes classified or privileged information to the Obamans. The Bush "torture" memos – NO. The Iraq prisoner abuse photos – NO. Photos that might embarass the President – YES. It appears "the most open administration in history" is only open about OTHER administrations, not it's own.
—
Multiple Chrysler creditors are saying the Obama administration engaged in political threats and intimidation to get the creditors to surrender their contractual rights as the Obama administration wants. From Business Insider:

Conversations with administration officials left them [Chrysler creditors] expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The audacity of hope. The politics of fear. This is why the government shouldn't run businesses, and why government should be limited, as the Constitution intended. It looks like Obama's Chicago political machine training is coming in handy. Make 'em an offer they can't refuse. One creditor, who voted for Obama, called him "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet – and I knew Kissinger."
—
Recent polling suggests Americans don't believe in man-made global warming, despite the finest scare tactics the left and the media could muster up. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 34% of Americans believe man is causing global warming. A Pew Research poll found that out of twenty important issues facing the country, global warming ranked dead last, the least important. I'd say maybe Al Gore should make another movie to protect his green investments, but Democrats are pressing forward with climate change legislation anyway. House Democrats say they'll have a bill ready by Memorial Day, and intend to pass it by year end.
—
In the $3.5 trillion budget approved by Congress, President Obama's much hyped "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" end after NEXT YEAR. Y'all really didn't believe the hype, did you ? Notably, Bush's tax cuts for the lower and middle classes will be kept (I thought those were "tax cuts for the rich"). Also, the budget stops Republicans from blocking Obama's health care plans (but I'm sure they are blocking the GOP in a "bipartisan" and "inclusive" fashion).
—
But I want to be fair to our media. Here is a great story MSNBC broke about Obama and Biden going to a burger joint in Virginia. It seems our Telemprompter-In-Chief and his Gaffemaster VP walked right up to the counter, ordered their own burgers, and waited until the burgers were done. End of story. Do I smelll a Pulitzer in the air for MSNBC ?????

Let me say right up front, I didn't like Ted Stevens, the former Republican Senator from Alaska. He was just the sort of porkbarrel spending politician that I abhor. Like so many others in Washington D.C., he treated the taxpayers like they were his personal ATM machine. He was an entrenched political insider, a career politician who'd been in the Senate since 1968. He was the most Senior Republican on Capitol Hill. When Stevens was convicted on corruption charges, I assumed he finally got exactly what he deserved.

It turns out he didn't. Thanks to Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, we now know there was massive prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case. Kudos to Holder for sticking to the principles of the law. Without them, we'd have no justice at all. The case against Ted Stevens has been dropped. Emmett Sullivan, the judge in the Stevens case, has appointed his own prosecutor to investigate the prosecutors in the Stevens case. Here's what Sullivan said about the prosecutorial misconduct:

…U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said yesterday that he has no faith in [a Justice Department] investigation after seeing so much "shocking and disturbing" behavior by the government.

"In 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I have seen in this case," he said.

Among other things, the prosecutors wittheld evidence from the defense which would have contradicted the testimony of a key witness against Stevens. The prosecutors SHOULD be prosecuted.

After Stevens' conviction was overturned, the political spin machine cranked up, as sure as day follows night. The spin from the left basically went like this – "This proves the Bush Justice Department was crooked, and now the Obama Justice Department will fix it." Here's a NY Times op-ed to beat that drum:

For eight years the Bush Justice Department cynically put politics and ideology above the law. So it is gratifying to see how Attorney General Eric Holder is handling the case against Ted Stevens…Given the flagrant partisanship of the Bush Justice Department, it is especially reassuring to see Mr. Holder ignore party lines to do the right thing by Mr. Stevens. It has been far too long since the attorney general seemed interested in enforcing ethics and nonpartisanship in a department that has been shockingly lacking in both.

With all due respect to the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media, what in the hell are they talking about ???? Maybe it hasn't occurred to the Times, but Ted Stevens is a REPUBLICAN. If the Bushies were only interested in partisanship and ideology, they wouldn't have brought any charges against Stevens at all, especially when Stevens' Senate seat was about as secure as could be prior to the corruption charges being brought against him. Stevens had been a sitting Senator for 30 years. If the Bushies were only interested in partisanship and ideology, they wouldn't have willingly shot down Stevens' seat and handed it to the Democrats (which is exactly what happened) during an election year that had the Dems so close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Being the inquisitive sort, I set about the task of trying to find out the political affiliations of the actual prosecutors in the Stevens case, the ones who actually committed the misconduct. Here are the names and brief biographies of the prosecutors who are being investigated. I'm sad to report that I've only been able to come up with the political affiliation of one of them, but it's a biggie. The supervisor of the Stevens prosecutorial team, the boss, was William Welch, a Democrat who had his eye on another job. He wanted to become the U.S. Attorney General for the state of Massachusetts.

I wonder why those crazy partisan Bushies would prosecute a sitting Republican Senator (the first such prosecution in a generation), and then allow a Democrat with political aspirations to head up the prosecution ? Weird, huh ? Or maybe the liberal media is just full of it. You decide.

Not that the right wing isn't doing a little spinning also. I keep reading on the right wing blogs that this was a partisan hit job against Stevens to steal his Senate seat, and that the timing of Stevens' conviction (a week before the election) was a Machiavellian conspiracy by the Dems. There's one big problem with this scenario – Stevens was the one who insisted on expediting his trial so it would be over before the election. I don't know about the partisan hit job thing yet, but the timing of it definitely didn't come from the Democrats.

I have a feeling there is much more to come on this story.

If you want to see a classic example of how our government acts outside the law, watch this video with Glenn Beck ripping Connecticut's Attorney General a new one over the AIG bonuses. The good stuff starts about 1:30 into the video. Watch the AG squirm and stutter for 11 minutes as Beck continually asks him what law allows Connecticut's AG to take back the AIG bonuses (the eventual answer – there isn't one).

After watching Beck destroy this government clown, I only hope Beck, who lives in Connecticut, has his own financial house in locked-down airtight order. Then again, it doesn't really matter. If the government wants you, the government will get you.

Congress gets very upset when TARP bailout money goes to corporate employee bonuses, corporate jet rides, and corporate golf tournaments.

What Congress doesn't get so very upset about is when TARP bailout money goes to Congress, in the form of campaign contributions.

In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG "counterparty." "This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions," says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it's his "policy to accept legal contributions.")

In addition, TARP fund recipients paid $114 million in political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2008.

Some of the top recipients of contributions from companies receiving TARP money are the same members of Congress who chair committees charged with regulating the financial sector and overseeing the effectiveness of this unprecedented government program. They include Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (he received $854,200 from the companies in the 2008 election cycle, including money to his presidential campaign) and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (he received $279,000). In total, members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senate Finance Committee and House Financial Services Committee received $5.2 million from TARP recipients in the 2007-2008 election cycle. President Obama collected at least $4.3 million from employees at these companies for his presidential campaign.

The companies making the biggest political donations just so happened to be the same companies that received the largest TARP bailouts. What a coincidence.

The companies giving the most to fund lawmakers' campaigns and spending the most on lobbying efforts were also those that received the most TARP money to help them stay afloat. This includes General Motors, which spent $15 million between campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures and got $10.4 billion (more than all other companies), Bank of America (and the investment company it bought last year, Merrill Lynch), which spent $14.5 million to play politics and received $45 billion from the bailout bill; and American International Group (AIG), which spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion. Citigroup was also one of the largest spenders to see a big result: between lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, the company spent $12.5 million and got $50 billion.

For a complete list of TARP recipients that spent money on campaign contributions and lobbying, see the above link.

While I'm sure all our congressional members have the very highest ethical standards (LOL. Sometimes I crack myself up), this information makes it look like taxpayer dollars were for sale to the highest bidder.

Just like always.

Maybe the campaign contributions made these companies too big to fail.

FYI – Bank of America, receiver of $45 billion in TARP funds, MADE A PROFIT in 2008. So did Goldman Sachs. So did Morgan Stanley. Hmmm. Citigroup lost a lot of money in 2008, but over the last five years, has made a five year net profit of about $39 billion. All these companies made a bundle if you look back beyond the fourth quarter of 2008. They all made HUGE profits for years prior.

Get the picture ? These companies are not only to big to fail, they're too big to suffer even a one quarter loss before the government takes money from us peons to prop up the earnings statements of the big boys.

THEY are too big for the government to let fail. WE are too small for the government to give a damn about.

Campaign promise:

"sunlight is the best disinfectant…and when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you, the public, will have five days to look online and find out what's in it, before I sign it." – Barack Obama

Reality:

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – wasn't put online.
The SCHIP expansion – signed before the five day waiting period.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – passed late friday night, will be signed on tuesday, less than five days (granted, America will vaporize if Obama waits).

But Obama's promise sure sounded good to his blind and adoring followers, just like the one he broke before he even took office about not having any lobbyists on his team.

Here's what Obama said about lobbyists on the campaign trail:

"I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

Statements like these drew great applause from Obama's naive and adoring fans, but they were always hogwash. When is somebody in the media going to realize that Obama For America is itself nothing but an army of people attempting to influence legislative actions (lobbying) ? Community organizers, like Obama used to be, also mobilize people for legislative change. They are lobbyists too. So, let's stop playing political pretend about lobbyists. ALL politicians and those associated with them are LOBBYISTS, attempting to implement their political agenda for their own ends. The Democratic and Republican parties are nothing but huge, well-funded lobbying groups. Attempts to ban lobbyists are essentially an attempt to remove politics from politics. Impossible. If it's the influence of lobbyist's money that we are trying to prevent, we must agree to the public funding of political campaigns, like John McCain did, and Barack Obama DIDN'T (breaking his word again). Change We Can Believe In.
===
It looks like the man appointed to take Obama's Senate seat, Roland Burris (D-IL), perjured himself during the Blagojevich pay-to-play investigation. In a sworn statement to the Illinois House panel investigating Blagojevich, Burris said he had no contacts at all with the impeached governor before his appointment in late December. But it seems Burris left out one itty bitty little detail – Blagojevich’s brother solicited $10,000 in campaign cash from Burris before Blago named Burris to Obama's seat. Oops. That sounds like contact with Blago to me, and there's no way this solicitation could have slipped Burris' mind when it was the very subject of the Blagojevich investigation.

I can hardly wait for the forthcoming "it was an innocent mistake and I'm deeply sorry for the oversight" claim from Burris.
===
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) opened her fat yap and exposed some key counterterrorism information. Feinstein revealed that unmanned CIA Predator drones monitoring terrorists are run out of an airbase inside Pakistan. It was always assumed previously that the drones came from U.S. airbases. This hints at a much deeper cooperation between the Pakistan and U.S. governments than was thought before, and causes credibility problems between the Pakistan government and it's own anti-american citizenry, complicating the fight against terrorism. Feinstein is the chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, though maybe the word "Intelligence" doesn't apply here. Pakistan possesses 100 nuclear weapons, and if you were to pick a world government most likely to be overthrown and placed under Taliban/Al Qaeda/Islamic rule, Pakistan would be it. Thanks, Diane.
===
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) will stay on as chairman of the House Ways And Means Committee. Rangel, a tax cheat, is in charge of writing the tax code (How did Obama miss this guy for a cabinet position ?). Rangel's past is littered with one scandal after another, yet he always manages to avoid any real consequences (It's good to be a Democrat !).

Rangel's number one excuse for not paying his taxes is…are you ready for this ?…he didn't understand the tax code (that Rangel himself is in charge of writing). You couldn't make this up. Nobody would believe it.

I seem to remember something about a "culture of corruption." Wasn't it Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who coined that phrase ? Of course, she was talking about Republicans (Abramoff, Cunningham, Delay), but these days it seems a week can't go by without hearing about some new scandal involving Democrats. Daschle, Geithner, Richardson, Jefferson, Blagojevich, Kilpatrick, Murtha, Rangel, Jefferson, Spitzer, Dodd, Conrad, Mollohan, Solis…

Sure glad we restored ethics to government.

Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) wants to launch an investigation into all the Bush administration's unseemly activities, such as – firing 8 U.S. attorneys, wiretapping without warrants, and misleading the public about those weapons of mass destruction. Leahy would call his investigation a "Truth Commission."

Leahy said "a person or group" of "fair-minded" individuals could be authorized to "find the truth." Leahy suggested the process could involve subpoena powers and the authority to obtain immunity from prosecutors. "Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," he said.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the group of "fair-minded" individuals conducting the investigation would consist of far more Democrats than Republicans. Maybe I'm just overly cynical when it comes to political motivations. And maybe I'm not.

But it sounds cool to me. I'm all for the truth. I only have one real caveat…I'm for the WHOLE truth, not the narrower version of the truth Pat Leahy would like to pursue.

If Leahy is going to investigate the Bush administration for these activities, it would only be logical and "fair-minded" to investigate the prior Clinton administration as well. After all, Bush fired 8 U.S. attorneys. Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys, including some who were investigating Clintonistas and zeroing in on the Whitewater investigation. Bush wiretapped suspected international terrorists without warrants following 9/11 in an attempt to fend off any future attacks. Clinton monitored ALL electronic communications without warrants (Project Echelon). Bush said Saddam had WMD. Clinton said Saddam had WMD. Bush used the CIA rendition program. Clinton STARTED the CIA rendition program. Bush went to war in Iraq. Clinton launched attacks against Iraq, and also made the policy of the USA toward Iraq one of regime change with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

I wonder if Leahy and his Truth Commission are interested in THAT much truth. I have a sneaking suspicion they aren't.

As a matter of fact, Leahy himself "misled" the American public about those Iraqi WMD's back in 1998, and again in 2002, when he said:

"The Iraqi regime has already invaded Iran and Kuwait, gassed members of its own population, and repeatedly flouted international conventions against armed aggression. It is clear that Iraq has tried to develop a range of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with which Iraq might threaten the entire Gulf region."

Will Leahy investigate himself ? Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm also wondering if Pat Leahy is the right man to head up the Truth Commission. I mean, after all, he did commit treason several times during the 1980's. When Leahy was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he leaked classified information on several occasions, earning himself the nickname "Leaky Leahy." He was forced to resign from the Intelligence Committee over it. Leahy's lucky he wasn't a Republican, or he'd probably have been prosecuted, like Scooter Libby was. Here's a summary of Leaky Leahy's activities:

Senator Pat Leahy was annoyed with the Reagan administration's war on terrorism in the 1980s. At the time he was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

- "Leaky Leahy," allegedly threatened to sabotage classified strategies he didn't like.

- Leahy ‘inadvertently' disclosed a top-secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. The intercept … made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens. Leahy's report is thought to have cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation.

- In July 1987, it was reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libya's Moammar Gaddhafi. U.S. intelligence officials said Leahy, along with the Republican panel chairman, sent a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey. Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.

- A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.

He should have been indicted, tried and sentenced.

Leahy's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the Intelligence Committee's 10-year history.

Maybe we can find a better arbiter of truth than Pat Leahy, the traitor who leaked classified information and undermined his country because he didn't like President Reagan's pursuit of terrorism.

Maybe we can find someone a little MORE "fair-minded." Someone who actually cares about the truth ahead of partisan politics. Pat Leahy is not that guy.

On monday, when asked if he still supported Tom Daschle as Health And Human Services (HHS) chief, even though Daschle owed $140K in back taxes until his nomination was announced, President Barack Obama said "absolutely."

On tuesday, after Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, Obama said the following during an interview with Chris Wallace. (link)

"…we can't send a message to the American people that we've got two sets of rules: one for prominent people and one for ordinary people. And, you know, so I consider this a mistake on my part and one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we're not screwing up again."

That's quite a change. What caused Obama's complete about face in one day ?

The President decided there shouldn't be "two sets of rules" only AFTER his nominee quit on his own. Prior to that, Obama was perfectly fine with two sets of rules. And if the same standard applied for everybody, Tim Geithner (didn't pay $35K in taxes) wouldn't be the Secretary of the Treasury.

According to Daschle, he called Obama to withdraw his name after reading a New York Times editorial against Daschle's nomination. (link) Wow. The Times was against something Obama did ??? Color me impressed. Obviously, this means the NY Times has been taken over by racists.

Just kidding. I couldn't resist.

To me, the most interesting part of Tom Daschle's HHS nomination wasn't the $140,000 in unpaid taxes, it was the fact that Daschle was lining his pockets working for a lobbying firm in the health care industry, and Obama selected him anyway, in spite of Obama's recurring pledges that lobbyists wouldn't work in his administration, that insider politics-as-usual would change, and all that rot. If Daschle is anything, he is an ultimate Washington D.C. insider power broker.

After 26 years in Congress, Daschle went to work for the lobbying arm of the K Street firm Alston & Byrd. Because Daschle was prevented by law from being a lobbyist for one year after leaving the Senate, Daschle's title was "special policy advisor." A&B was paid $5.8 million in the first nine months of 2008 to represent it's clients before Congress and the executive branch. The majority of that lobbying was done on behalf of A&B's clients in the health care industry. Daschle was paid $2 miliion by Alston and Byrd to be an "advisor." In other words, Daschle was a lobbyist without technically being a lobbyist. He legally skirted around the law. I'd presume this is not what Barack Obama meant when he said there would be "no special interests in the White House," but since Obama selected Daschle, who is hip deep in the lobbying game, I'm no longer sure what the heck Obama meant, or if he meant anything at all. Maybe it just sounded good on the campaign trail.

Daschle did have health care experience that dovetailed with Obama's interests, which made Daschle "the best man for the job" according to the White House.

Daschle acted as the coordinator of the failed effort to pass President Bill Clinton's comprehensive health-care bill in 1994, and he advocated for regulation of managed care, a patients' bill of rights, and prescription drug benefits under Medicare.

So, Daschle worked on HillaryCare, which went down in flames and is widely seen as the reason the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994. Okay, that's something, but does it really make Daschle "the best man for the job" at HHS ? Not yet, but there's much more.

Here are the real reasons Daschle was "the best man for the job."

In february 2007, Daschle threw his support behind Obama for president, early during the primary season. He became a key Obama advisor and one of the national co-chairs for the Obama campaign. Daschle let it be known that he was interested in universal health care and would be interested in the HHS job. In 2008, Daschle co-wrote a book with two others, titled "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis", which advocates a single-payer universal government run health care system. Daschle wanted to create a Federal Health Board to oversee all medical matters (BINGO !!! Best man for the job !!!). Most people call this socialized medicine. Obama has said he favors a single-payer system, and it's no secret that his health care proposals are designed to lead us there.

I submit the following – the Obama people don't give a darn that Daschle didn't pay his taxes, or that he worked for a lobbying firm in the very area he would have been running. Heck no. They just kept telling us what a great guy Daschle is, so very honest and upright. Then they feigned concern over these "serious matters," while hoping Daschle would be whisked right through the confirmation process. That's how the game works. What they were really telling you is that rules are for suckers, and D.C. power players aren't suckers. No sir. THEY are players. WE'RE the suckers.

But then Daschle up and quit, amid objections, so now the Obama administration pretends they are taking the high road, which they never were doing.

Playing "let's pretend" is the name of the game.

They pretend Daschle didn't know he owed $140,000 in back taxes until the second he was nominated to run HHS. They pretend it was just a coincidence that the penalties on those taxes were waived. They pretend Daschle thought his "friend" just gave him a free limousine and a free driver, even though that "friend" was Daschle's business partner. They pretend it's normal for a health care company to pay Daschle $83,000 for ONE MONTH of "consulting." They pretend it's normal for Daschle to fly all over the country in corporate jets. They pretend that it's normal to pay Daschle $15,000-$40,000 just to GIVE A SPEECH, which happened over and over and over again. Yeah, let's just pretend. Nothing to see here. No influence peddling. My, no. Just business as usual, D.C. style.

Somehow, none of the above actions by Daschle was deemed "shameful" by President Obama or his vetting team, because they selected Daschle. The Democrats reserve such labels for Wall Street compensation, oil company profits, and car company CEO's, but never one of their own. No sirree. Tom Daschle was merely an "honest and humble public servant."

That's the ticket.

As I watch embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich make the media rounds proclaiming his innocence, even though he's on tape trying to get quid pro quo for President Obama's vacant Senate seat, and also on tape trying to trade political favors for campaign contributions, I think to myself…..this guy is a talented politician and really knows how the political game works. His ability to lie with a straight face, to flat-out deny the words anybody can hear for themselves on those tapes, to claim his enemies are out to get him because they don't like his tax cuts, to even have the unbelievable gall to say he was taken out of context……simply marvelous. Blago's machinations give us a rare behind-the-scenes look at how things are really done in the political world.

Kudos to you, Governor Blago. Rather than being ostracized from the Democratic Party, I think they should make you the head of the Democratic National Committee, at the very least. It's so unfair. I mean, look at Hillary Clinton. As Senator, she gave a $5 million earmark to a New York developer who donated $100,000 to hubby Bill's foundation, and they made her Secretary Of State ! No wonder Blago feels put upon. Bill Richardson was offered the Secretary of Commerce job by Obama even though he was under federal investigation for pay-to-play at the time. When he was Governor of New Mexico, Richardson handed out a $1.5 million contract to CDR Financials after CDR's head honcho contributed $100,000 to Richardson's political action committee. (I guess $100,000 is the current ticket price for the Democrats). Senators like Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel, and many, many others regularly direct money to their contributors, and nobody is bothering them. Smilin' Chucky Schumer is on television all the time, lying about one thing or another, and I've never even heard anybody ask him about his pay-to-play deals. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has directed millions of dollars to his own family members, and nobody is grumbling about that either. Heck, our new Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, didn't even pay his own taxes, and he was being reimbursed for the taxes he didn't pay. That's a crime (more than one), and he was easily confirmed by the Senate. If I tried to cite all the examples of shady behavior by Democrats in D.C., I'd have to write a book instead of a post. A very long book. Suffice it so say, there aren't any actual moral standards that come into play here. Blago really did only ONE thing wrong.

He got caught.

Blago thought he was doing the smart thing by making his pay-to-play calls from his house rather than his office, but…gotcha!…the FBI bugged his house too. Thus, Blago lost the essential requirement for engaging in pay-to-play….deniability. Hillary, Richardson, Schumer, and Rangel all have it. Blago doesn't (yet he's still trying to run the deniability play. What a persistent guy. And entertaining). Hillary, Richardson, Schumer, Rangel, and the others can all play off their quid pro quo as mere coincidence and say the one wasn't related to the other. Blago can't do that.

So now the rest of the Democratic party has to pretend like they are so awfully shocked and dismayed by such behavior as Blago's. Riiiiight. It's doubly ridiculous when those Democrats come from Chicago, the renowned home of Daly Democratic machine politics. It's ALL quid pro quo, and has been for decades. You want a government contract ? You better donate.

There is even language written into Obama's Economic Stimulus Bill (arguably the worst bill in American history) which specifies that Illinois won't get any money if Blagojevich is still the governor. I kid you not. Poor Blago isn't even getting due process. That's how fast the Dems have turned their backs on him. And I guess whoever put that language about Blago in the stimulus bill didn't realize they were engaging in quid pro quo themselves by threatening the entire state of Illinois ("You want money, Illinois ? We'll make you an offer you can't refuse. We want Blago gone"). On the Glenn Beck show, Blago said a Republican put that language in the stimulus bill, after Blago at first said he didn't know that language was in the stimulus bill and had Beck read it to him twice (I told you he was entertaining). Politicians are shameless.

I don't want any of you to think I'm singling out Democrats here. It's not like the Republicans are any different. Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay…same thing. Republicans are maybe a little more likely to be investigated for it (because the media is more prone to shout Republican sins from the rooftops), but the Republicans sure aren't any different.

The above examples also serve as reminder #3257 for why limited government, low taxes, and liberty are the best way. The less power you give the government, the less corrupt they can be. Our founders saw things the same way, but we seem to be under some kind of spell at the moment, some mass delusion that there's a better way, that by handing everything over to Big Brother (as long as he's a great guy with chiseled pecs like Obama), we'll all be better off. Talk about a fool's paradise.

"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure" – Mark Twain

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has over 300 hours of tape of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, obtained by bugging the Governor's campaign offices and home phone. Fitzgerald refers to Blago's actions as a "political corruption crime spree", and arrested him. Blago is charged with attempting to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, illegally withholding state assistance to the Chicago Tribune unless certain reporters critical of Blago were fired, mail and wire fraud, and several other pay-to-play arrangements, where Blago handed out contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions. More specifics on the charges are almost certain to come later, as only a few minutes of the tapes have been released to the public. Blago got in hot water earlier when he was implicated in the trial of president-elect Obama's buddy Tony Rezko, who apparently served as Blago's bag man and is now a convicted felon.

Blago is a child of Chicago Democratic machine politics, having previously represented the Chicago area in Congress. As such, Blago must be wondering right about now exactly what he did wrong. After all, what Blago did is pretty much standard operating procedure in Chicago, and sometimes the entire state. Influence peddling is the name of the game. Bllago's predecessor, Governor George Ryan, a Republican, is currently serving a 6 1/2 year sentence on federal corruption charges. If Blago goes to prison, he will be the 4th Illinois governor to do so. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that in the last 30 years, 79 elected Illinois, Chicago, and Cook county officials have been convicted on corruption charges, including three governors, two top state officials, 15 state legislators, two congressmen, one mayor, three top city officials, 27 aldermen, 19 Cook County judges and seven other Cook County officials. Here are a few quotes from a National Post aricle about Chicago/Illinois politics:

"We have a culture of machine politics and it lends itself to corruption," said Dick Simpson, a political scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a former Chicago alderman. "We are the capital of corruption in the U.S. The idea of machine politics is, 'If you vote for me, I give you some favours.' "

"The heart of machine politics is deal making and deal making is a political tradition in Illinois, added Paul Green, director of the Institute for Politics at Chicago's Roosevelt University. "You give nothing away. Everything is traded. Everything is a deal and that's how this state has operated from the very beginning."

"If [Illinois] isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Robert Grant, the head of the FBI's Chicago office said Tuesday after he arrested Mr. Blagojevich.

The current Chicago mayor, Richard M. Daley, is under investigation. He is the son of the infamous Chicago mayor Richard J. Daly, Democratic machine politician extraordinaire from the 60's and 70's.

All this inevitably leads one to ask how Barack Obama, another child of Chicago politics, could have so much corruption flying all around him and not have noticed it, much as Obama never noticed the hate spewing from the mouth of the pastor of the Chicago church he attended for 20 years. Now, I'm certainly not trying to implicate Obama in any crime, there is no evidence of that, but by all accounts, Obama never rocked the Chicago political boat. He was a go along, get along opportunistic sort, using one position to climb to the next one, which eventually led him to the ultimate position of power, the Presidency of the United States. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can find exactly ZERO examples of Obama blowing the whistle or rooting out corruption among his peers, such as Sarah Palin did in Alaska. And Obama's Illinois peers are arguably the most corrupt politicians in the entire country, though the phrase "corrupt politicians" is fairly redundant in my book.

Naturally, Obama is distancing himself from Blagojevich now that Blago got his hand caught in the cookie jar, just as he distanced himself from Rev. Wright when it became harmful to his presidential aspirations. That is political expedience. Our new prez has that down pat. My question is, where was he when it mattered ? It could be he was oblivious to his surroundings, not a good presidential trait and unlikely considering Obama's alleged brilliance, or worse, he looked the other way to further his own career. Neither one sounds much like the hope and change we can believe in to me. Sounds more like the same old, same old.

The Troopergate investigation was launched to determine whether or not Alaska Governor Sarah Palin(R) abused the power of her office by firing Alaska Safety Commissioner Walt Moneghan. The Safety Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor, so Palin is allowed to hire and fire whomever she pleases for the job, but allegations have been made that Palin fired Moneghan because Moneghan refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten. Palin claims she fired Moneghan over budgetary matters and to move the department in a new direction. The investigation pre-dates John McCain's selection of Palin as his Republican Vice Presidential nominee, but is quickly becoming a political football as the presidential election nears.

Moneghan told the Anchorage Daily News on August 30 that nobody ever told him to fire Wooten. He said, "For the record, no one has ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff.”

Also for the record, trooper Wooten remains on the job, despite admitting to tasering his 10-year old stepson and illegally shooting a moose (this problem doesn't come up much in Ohio). Wooten has also been accused of drinking alcohol in his police car on multiple occasions. Wooten denies this charge, but multiple witnesses contradicted him and he was suspended from duty because of it. Wooten has also been accused of threatening to kill Palin's father. Wooten denies this too, but is contradicted by the Palin family. Wooten, who has been married and divorced four times, divorced Palin's sister in 2005 and engaged in an ugly child-custody battle with her. Moneghan has referred to Wooten as "not a model trooper" (Ya think ?).

So, if Palin never told Moneghan to fire Wooten, why do we even have an investigation in the first place ?

Because even though Moneghan said nobody told him to fire Wooten, he still believes not doing so was the reason he got canned. In early september, Moneghan said, "I believe I was fired because of, primarily the reason of her former brother-in-law. I think that my unwillingness to take special action against her former brother-in-law was not well received." A reason Moneghan believes this is because Sarah Palin, Todd Palin, and several Palin staff members spoke to Moneghan about trooper Wooten, expressing their concern about him.

As evidence, a taped phone call between a state police official and Palin staff member Frank Bailey surfaced, in which Bailey questions why trooper Wooten is still on the job. Bailey said, "The Palins can't figure out why nothing's going on. And here's the problem that's gonna happen is that, there is a possibility because Wooten is an ex-husband of the governor's sister, and there is a custody situation, there is a strong possibility that the Governor herself may get subpoenaed to talk about all this stuff on the stand. Right in the coming months, which would be, it would be ugly…I mean, you know, I don't think anybody wants that. But you know, Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, you know, why on Earth — why is this guy still representing the department?…I'm telling you honestly, I mean, she really likes Walt [Moneghan] a lot, but on this issue, she feels like she doesn't know why there is absolutely no action for a year on this issue. It's very, very troubling to her and the family."

I think asking questions about why trooper Wooten was still on the job despite his history of violations is valid, but the tape indicates there is more to this little soap opera than Sarah Palin has yet acknowledged. Palin responded to the tape, saying, "It seemed to be he [Bailey] just inquiring I think trying to process what do you do if there are complaints against a trooper and what is the status of this trooper. Though you will hear on the CD that it does sound like he's calling on behalf of the Governor [Palin]." I find it pretty unconvincing that Bailey wasn't calling on Palin's behalf, because there have been numerous discussions between Palin people and Moneghan regarding Wooten's status.

In summary, it appears beyond obvious that the Palin family wanted trooper Mike Wooten off the job, and they started talking to Moneghan about it before Sarah Palin even became the governor. The Palin family had very good reason. Moneghan didn't act on their wishes. Then Palin gets elected governor, and six months later, Moneghan loses his job.

So, did Sarah Palin fire Walt Moneghan because Moneghan wouldn't fire trooper Mike Wooten ????

I don't know, but this is not nothing. What I do know is that there is an investigation taking place, and it is being headed up by Senator Hollis French, a Democrat and partisan Obama supporter, who has promised to release a report "damaging" to Sarah Palin (interesting that French is promising a damaging report while the investigation is far from complete, and the key witnesses haven't even been interviewed yet. I told you, Troopergate is now a political football). The report is scheduled to be released FOUR DAYS PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, on October 31st (Surprise!). Palin has her own lawyer now, who is trying to get the entire investigation thrown out, on the grounds that the current investigation doesn't have "jurisdiction." This is a move to delay the results of the proceedings until AFTER THE ELECTION. I suspect a lot more footballs are yet to be tossed on this.

Stay tuned.

The sources for this post were:

ABC News reports

Propublica.org

Washington Post reports

The Emperor's Club…is that the 796 Democratic superdelegates who are poised to trump the will of the people at their whim during the Democratic primaries ? Or is that the Democratic National Committee, who disenfranchised voters in two entire states during the Democratic primaries ?

Naw, it isn't a group of politicians at all. It's a different kind of prostitute, the kind that sell their bodies to emperors like Eliot Spitzer, Democratic governor of New York.

I guess I should write about what a hypocrite Spitzer is, and ask how a former prosecutor and attorney general who ran for governor on a platform of high ethical standards and cracking down on crime could prosecute people like the Emperor's Club and patronize them at the same time, but all you have to do is turn on the television to hear that stuff. Spitzer's hypocrisy is plain for all to see. I guess I could politicize this and talk about a "culture of corruption" within the Democratic party, like Nancy Pelosi did when Republicans were caught being corrupt, but that would only be partisanship, and basically dishonest, so I'll leave the dishonesty to Pelosi and her ilk. For every Democrat caught doing something like this, there is also a Republican caught doing something like this. There is no political party that has a monopoly on corruption. I could reel off at least twenty corrupt politicians from both parties right off the top of my head, and I imagine most of you reading this could also.

So, I'll take a different tack.

Spitzer spent $4,300 for a hooker ? For one night ? Are you kidding me ? And now they are saying he spent $80,000 for hookers ! That's a lot of booty for booty.

This proves what I always say about government spending. Your average Democrat will always spend way more than your average Republican. Compare Spitzer to Larry Craig, Republican governor of Idaho. When Craig allegedly went looking for a little something, he went to the airport restroom. That's called being a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, folks. Craig didn't waste no $4,300 just to get laid. Just think, all that money Eliot Spitzer wasted on hookers could have been used to buy little Johnny a new kidney, or buy food for those who are hungry in the world. Instead, Spitzer just throws all that money down a hole (pun intended). Larry Craig didn't waste money like that. I bet Craig, had he been able to complete his transaction, would have been in and out (pun intended) for twenty bucks, maybe less. THAT'S a public servant, ladies and gentlemen.

People are saying that Eliot Spitzer was a potential presidential candidate prior to this sex scandal, so I have to ask this question – Since when does a sex scandal disqualify a Democrat from being president or in a position of government power ? Hello ??? McFly ??? Just how short ARE everyone's memories ?

And haven't we seen enough of the wives of these cheaters standing beside them at the press conference, looking like they've just been hit with a club, but "standing by their man" (who didn't stand by them) ? The only time I ever want to see this again is if the wife wacks the sob over the head with a frying pan right on national tv. Stand by this.

As always, the message here is – power corrupts. It always has, and it always will. There is no way to eliminate it, but in order to minimize it, here's a suggestion:

Don't hand all the power over to the government in the first place. That's where those low taxes, limited government, free market ideas come from. Too bad we don't have political parties that actually follow them, as our founders intended.

Clinton/Spitzer in '08. I hear Obama turned down Hillary's offer of the VP job. Pretty rude of him after Mrs. Clinton was kind enough to offer, don't you think, lol ? Sounds like the Clintons are still in denial. I figure Spitzer would be a good fallback choice for Hillary. She's used to handling cheaters. Plus, with both Spitzer and Bubba in the White House, the Emperor's Club would probably go public and become a good growth stock.

It's time again to vote for the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Porker of the Year.

The public outcry over the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars thrown at special-interest, pork-barrel projects reached a fever pitch in 2007. But who truly stood out as the worst custodian of your hard-earned money last year? Cast your vote for CAGW’s 2007 Porker of the Year!

Chosen by CAGW staff from among the 2007 Porkers of the Month, the nominees are:

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), for "airdropping" a $3 million earmark for the First Tee golf program into the fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act conference report.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), for thwarting three amendments to the Farm Bill that would have provided modest reform.

Rep. John "Jack" Murtha (D-Pa.), for throwing a temper tantrum and threatening his colleagues over a challenge to a $23 million pet project he inserted into the Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act and for purposefully putting up roadblocks and barriers to hinder earmark accountability and reform.

Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), for proposing a "temporary" 5-cent increase in the gas tax in the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse to raise $25 billion within three years for a new bridge trust fund.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), for an $11 million Health Resources and Services Administration earmark for his alma mater, the University of Alabama.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), for defending earmarks and pledging to continue his state's disproportionate harvest of federal tax dollars and for earmarking $10 million for an unnecessary county road project in Florida which was rejected by local politicians.

Cast your vote today and help CAGW decide who will receive the “dishonor” of being named 2007 Porker of the Year!

I'm sure you all remember Nancy Pelosi saying she was going to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Congress when the Democrats took control in 2006. Nancy was referring to the culture of corruption in the outgoing Republican Congress, of course. It was a big campaign issue for the Democrats, and it worked. The evil Republicans were cast out of the temple, and the Democrats, the party of all that is good and holy, the party of light, regained control. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. A great weight was lifted from the backs of the people, and the shadow removed from the sun. No longer would government be beholden to special interests. Pelosi was going to oversee the "most ethical Congress in history".

Sure. I hope none of you were dumb enough to believe that nonsense for even one second.

You should have known Pelosi was being less than forthright about cleaning up corruption right off the bat, when, about 10 minutes after the 2006 election results were in, she endorsed pork king and unindicted Abscam co-conspirator John Murtha for House Majority Leader. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Murtha didn't get that job, but still ended up as the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, where he became, drumroll please, THE NUMBER ONE HOUSE PORKER FOR 2007. Murtha procured $162 million in pork for his congressional district, surpassing all other House members. Go Johnny. It gets better. Murtha secured earmarks in the defense budget for 26 beneficiaries, and every single one of them contributed to his campaign, giving a total of $413,250. Murtha provides the best government that money can buy. He's like a fast food restaurant. You pay your money at one window and pickup your order at the next one.

Here's Andrew Koneschusky, a Murtha spokesman, 'answering' a question about Murtha's ethical problems back in 2006: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward". Thanks, Andrew. Excellent non-response.

Murtha was focused on the future alright. He was focused on YOUR money. Like a laser beam. Providing the "change the American people want". There's that CHANGE word again. The same word that is the key for the upcoming elections. What a coincidence. Sound familiar ? Maybe this CHANGE they are speaking of is what you'll have left in your pockets after the Democrats get done with you. National health care, national day care, etc, etc. Spending to the left of me. Spending to the right of me. A thousand points of fright.

And the most frightening thing of all is, THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WIN IN 2008, and be free to tax and spend us into oblivion, unfettered !!! Pass the Alka Seltzer. The Republican frontrunner is John McCain, for god's sake ! He's barely even a Republican, though he's playing one on television now. Egads. Even I might vote for Obama. What a sorry state. Say it isn't so. Where have you gone, Ronnie ? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to y…alas, too late.

But I'm getting off the topic, which is John Murtha and the NEW culture of corruption. I liked him better in the role of the crotchety old anti-war loon who wanted to redeploy our troops to Okinawa. At least he was good for a laugh then.