Lawyers give more money to political campaigns than does any other industry. During the 2004 elections, lawyers donated $183.8 million. So far in 2008, they've given $103 million, and we have 7 months to go until the election. Approximately 75% of the lawyer's money goes to Democrats. Lawyers, and specifically trial lawyers, are the Democrats number one special interest group, and have been for years. By comparison, the industry that donates the biggest percentage to Republicans is Oil/Gas. They are 16th on the industry donor list, having given $11.5 million in 2008. 73% of that goes to the GOP. You can find the donor numbers at opensecrets.org. The other big Democratic donor industries are Securities/Investment (like Bear Stearns), TV/Movies/Music (the liberal media), and Education (failing public schools/teacher's unions).

So, what do lawyers get in return for all that money they are throwing at the Democrats ?

Well, the Dems let the Protect America Act expire rather than grant immunity to the telecom companies that aided the government in tracking terrorists following 9/11. The lawyers have billions in lawsuits waiting in the wings there. Even national security took a back seat to the trial lawyers on that issue. That's what the Dems do for the trial lawyers. Dems block tort reform, block medical malpractice reform, block 'loser pays' lawsuit reform, and block damages award caps. Democrats are a trial lawyer's dream come true. Dems allow lawyers to continue to feed at the trough, uninhibited. Dems are money in the bank for trial lawyers. It's no wonder that Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards are all lawyers. No wonder all three of them buy into the ideas of victimology and entitlement. It's in their DNA. Everybody I know thinks our society has become overly litigious (except the litigators living in their mansions. They think it's peachy). Democrats are the reason our society is so sue happy. It's a big part of their agenda.

This leads me to the prestigious law firm of Milberg Weiss LLC (and by 'prestigious', I mean 'crooked as hell'). Milberg Weiss is one of the big tort law firms, and their specialty is class action lawsuits against corporations on behalf of their shareholders. You see, if shareholders don't get the expected return on their stock investment, the landsharks at Milberg Weiss are ready and willing to call that fraud or mismanagement, and sue the corporation. I kid you not. If you are a corporation and your stock price drops, Milberg Weiss will sue you if they can get enough of your stockholders to go along. Another specialty of Milberg Weiss is the so-called 'strike suit', which is a lawsuit that is so expensive to defend that corporations find it easier and less expensive to settle rather than fight. I'm pretty sure they used to call that extortion in the old days, but this is a brave new world.

There was a bigger problem with Milberg Weiss - they gave kickbacks to shareholders who provided primary testimony against the corporations they were suing. In other words, the testimony was bought and paid for, and that IS fraud, big time.

To call Milberg Weiss successful is an understatement. A 2004 Forbes article estimated Milberg Weiss lawsuit winnings at $30 billion. A couple weeks ago, I heard a Wall Street Journal analyst say it was up to $45 billion by 2008. The pattern of corruption at Milberg Weiss was mind boggling. They paid millions in kickbacks.

When the Bush Justice Department indicted several Milberg Weiss attorneys in 2006, after investigations that had been going on since the Clinton administration, Democrats in the US Congress rushed to their defense. The Dems politicized the indictments (surprise, surprise !) by issuing the following accusatory statement against the Bushies, which was signed by four Democrat Congressmen - Charles Rangel, Carolyn McCarthy, Gary Ackerman and Robert Wexler:

“The unprecedented recent indictment of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman is a very thinly veiled attempt by the Bush Administration to accomplish by bullying and intimidation what it has not been able to do by law - to end class-action lawsuits, one of the few tools remaining to safeguard the American consumer.”

That is typical Dem hyper-partisanship, but Rangel and company had a bit of a problem - Milberg Weiss attorneys were guilty as hell, and now the convictions are coming down. Seymour Lazar, retired, was convicted of paying $2.6 million to "professional plaintiffs" [link], and previously was found guilty of obstruction of justice, filing a false tax return, and making false statements to the court. Mel Weiss pled guilty to conspiring to obstruct justice by hiding secret payments to plaintiffs in securities lawsuits [link]. The prosecutor in the case against Mel Weiss said the firm has been running this scam for 25 years. Bill 'The King Of Torts" Lerach was also convicted in the kickback scheme [link]. Several others are still awaiting trial.

So, what kind of prison time did these felonious mass corrupters of the justice system get ?

You're gonna love this part.

After defrauding and extorting corporations for 25 years, bribing witnesses, giving kickbacks, obstructing justice, lying to the court, and collecting tens of billions in ill-gotten gains from it all….

Seymour Lazar got probation (he's 80 years old). Mel Weiss got 20-33 months, and Bill Lerach got 2 years. You'd get more time than that if you robbed $200 from the local mini mart.

Isn't it great to have friends in high places ?

Btw, Hillary Clinton has received more money from Milberg Weiss than any other member of Congress. Barack Obama received a lesser amount.

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!

Here's House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's summation of the performance of the Democrat led Congress in 2007, according to The Washington Post:

"the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

In addition, Pelosi claims:

"the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures — with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."

As David Broder notes in his WaPo article, Pelosi counts as "bipartisan" any vote that had 50 or more Republicans vote for it. There are 202 Republicans currently in the House. If 152 vote against Democratic legislation and 50 vote for it, that's bipartisan support to San Fran Nan. No wonder she's a politician. Such dishonesty doesn't work in most other professions. For instance, I doubt Exxon would launch a huge ad campaign touting $3.00 per gallon gasoline as costing only $1.00 per gallon. People would see through that rather easily.

They see through Pelosi as well. RealClearPolitics has a poll that averages the results of all recent polling. The current Congress gets an approval rating of 25%, and a disapproval rating of 63.5%. By contrast, President Bush gets a 35.4% approval rating.

This Hot Air video, called Pelosi's Promises, could explain some of the gap between Pelosi's rosy assessment and the people's perception of reality. Did the new Democratic Congress accomplish Pelosi's election night 2006 promises ? Did they 1) Restore civility and bipartisanship ? Were they 2) The most ethical Congress in history ? Did they 3) Work with the president on Iraq ? Have you stopped laughing yet ? I don't think I'm being partisan when I say they didn't even come close (not that they ever intended to).

To me, it feels like the Dems spent the whole year investigating Republicans for anything and everything, while ignoring or promoting obvious corruption within their own ranks (Jefferson, Hastings, Murtha, etc). I do have to take issue with the Hot Air video on one thing though. Creating a new cafeteria menu was not the biggest accomplishment of Congress. That's probably only in fourth or fifth place in the annus horribilis of Democratic accomplishment. This Congress also raised the minimum wage by a buck (good news for teenagers who need a couple extra bucks on saturday night), mandated increased car mileage standards (this one I like), and put through a one-year fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax (violating their own PAYGO promise in the process). Looking at the accomplishments of this Congress, I think the people would have been better served if our illustrious representatives had all taken 11-month vacations and just went along with the Bush budget (with no pay, of course. That would have been a case of Congress actually saving us some dough). Then, at least we wouldn't have had a situation like the one with the last minute december Omnibus bill, where the minority party had less than 24 hours to read massive spending legislation that contained 12,000 pork items that passed with no oversight and no discussion. The alternative was to defund the troops in the field. Yeah, great. What was that you said about bipartisanship and ethics, Mrs. Pelosi ? Now we know what Pelosi meant when she said the Dems were going to "… make America safer, restore the American dream, and restore accountability". That translates to lose the war, raise taxes and spending, and be more corrupt than ever. Pretty much what I thought from the beginning.

And then there was Nan's trip to Syria.

Great. Just great. Anybody got any Advil ?

The Clinton campaign brought up Barack Obama's high school drug use as a weapon against him. Obama has openly admitted to it and never attempted to hide it. Unlike Bill Clinton, who "didn't inhale", Obama did inhale and is honest about it. I respect Obama for telling the truth, even if it hurts him in this presidential race. There are no perfect people on this earth. As for respecting the Clintons…nah, don't think so.

This story is standard operating procedure for a Clinton campaign. First, the story is leaked to the press, and then the Clinton candidate denies any knowledge of it. They have run this play many times before. The hit man this time was Bill Shaheen, national co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Shaheen made his remarks to the Washington Post (Gosh, I can't imagine how it became public after telling the Post !). Now, get a load of this. Shaheen said he was concerned that REPUBLICANS would use Obama's past drug use against him, even as Shaheen, representing the Clinton campaign, was using Obama's past drug use against him. These people are shameless.

Here's what Shaheen said, from the article:

Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is the state's former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said.

And here's the stock Clinton denial:

Clinton's campaign said it had nothing to do with his comments, and Shaheen said later he regretted them.

"I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way," Bill Shaheen said in an e-mail released by the campaign.

A campaign spokeswoman, Kathleen Strand, earlier had said "Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people. These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way."

Right. And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

Anybody who believes this was not a planned move by the Clintons, please raise your hand (Seriously. I have special software that allows me to see you sitting at your computer reading this…Reverend, you can put your hand down. I already know you believe the Clintons. It's part of your religion, The Doctrine of Democratic Infallibility). The rest of us all know better. The second Shaheen mentioned the Republicans during this dirty political trick against Obama, everyone in the country should have know it came straight from Hillary. Hillary blames the Republicans for everything, especially her own coverups. A vast right-wing conspiracy, remember ? Every time she gets into a rough spot in a debate, she starts talking about the "Republican machine". It's a reflex with her.

Obama knows the Clintons are being dishonest. Here's a response from his campaign manager, David Plouffe:

"Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the fun part of this campaign, and now she's moved from Barack Obama's kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton's campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he's talked about the lessons he's learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people."

I, for one, hope this blows up right in Hillary's face. I hope she loses Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Does anybody have Oprah's phone number ?

Ex-prez Bill Clinton, stumping in Iowa for the would be next-prez, his wife Hillary, re-created a little history yesterday. That's not an unusual thing for a Clinton to do, pretty normal really, but this one was notable. Here's the statement Bubba made, according to the Washington Post:

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.

Today, Fox News was talking about Bill saying that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning", because, well, he didn't. In May of 2003, Mr. Clinton said, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". So, Bubba was for the war before he was against it, and let's not forget that he was also the one who made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US government in 1998 when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Let's also not forget the Clintonistas were sure those wmd were in Iraq in 1998, 2000, and 2002. Let's also not forget that Bubba's wife voted FOR the Iraq war, also before she was against it. Bill Clinton's only caveat against the Iraq war was his precarious statement that he wished Bush had let the weapons inspectors finish their job, even though the weapons inspectors had been attempting to do their job for over 10 years in Iraq, but couldn't, due to Saddam's misdirection and interference.

Do these politicians not realize that we have the ability to look their previous statements up on the internet nowadays ? How do they think they can get away with this stuff ? These lies just don't fly.

But that stuff is just Clintons being Clintons. If they didn't lie all the time, they wouldn't BE Clintons. If they didn't lie all the time, they'd be real human beings, complete with consciences and other vestiges of humanity. Oh well.

What I really want to talk about is the other part of Bubba's statement, the part where he said he didn't deserve the Bush tax cuts, and that he was "not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers". Now, maybe the ex-prez wasn't asked to give his money to support those soldiers, but he sure as heck has the opportunity, as do all the others who think they aren't paying enough in taxes. For all you rich folk out there who don't think you're paying your fair share, i.e. Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand, and all the rest of you overpaid phonies, I'm going to help you all to ease your consciences and assuage your guilt. Lord knows, I don't want a bunch of guilty liberals running around crying in their stretch limos. So, get out your checkbooks right now and write a bunch of big fat multi-million (or billion, Mr. Buffett) dollar checks to Uncle Sam right now. I'm sure it will be greatly appreciated. If enough of you guilty fat cats like Mr. Clinton get together and pony up enough dough, maybe y'all can support the troops AND get rid of that federal deficit. I'll even provide the address for you. Consider it a public service:

Internal Revenue Service,
1111 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20224.

(You'd think Bill Clinton would know about this IRS place, since he lived right down the street from it for 8 years)

If y'all don't want to pony up the money, that's fine too, but please then, Mr. Clinton and all the rest of you rich whining pinheads, shut your lying yaps !

So, whaddya think, everyone ? Will those rich people start sending in their big checks to support the troops now and fill up the federal government's coffers ?

Not a chance.

You are supposed to feel guilty today, you know. We all want to celebrate Thanksgiving, because most of us realize we have a lot to be thankful for, but protesters remind us that the original Thanksgiving wasn't followed up by many more good times for the Indians, I mean, Native Americans, while other protesters tell us that killing turkeys isn't such a good thing either. So humanocentric. Maybe we should listen to PETA and eat some tofurkey instead, whatever that is. Plus, eating all that food will make us fat and lead to health problems, overburdening our health care system and causing us to miss work, decreasing productivity.

And what are all you men doing sitting on the couch watching football while the women do all the work, you sexist pigs ?

After today, the Christmas shopping season kicks into full gear, with all our american decadent consumerism on full display. Oh, wait a minute, am I still allowed to say 'Christmas', or is that a bad word now ? Do I have to say 'the holiday shopping season' instead ? Lord knows, I mean, gosh knows, I want to be politically correct. Let me phone the ACLU to check on this year's protocol. I'll remember to press '1' for english.

Or…..

Forget all that, and have a great day with your loved ones. Thank God for your blessings, and say a prayer for our troops while you're at it. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. We are truly fortunate to live in this country and in this time.

The other day, Mitt Romney said the USA should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Much to Romney's chagrin, the USA is already boycotting the UN Human Rights Council, so we don't have a seat. Oops. Mitt made a mistake, but he also said a mouthful.

The former Massachusetts governor said the U.N. Human Rights Council has repeatedly condemned Israel while taking no action against nations with repressive regimes.

"The United Nations has been an extraordinary failure of late," Romney said in response to a question at a pancake house along the coast of early voting South Carolina. "We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council."

Irwin Cotler, Canadian Parliament member, details some of the discriminatory policies of the UN council in this Boston Globe article. The UN condemns an Israeli attack on Palestinians even as they ignore the Palestinian attack that provoked it. Ditto on battles between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has been so singled out, that even former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the entire UN loses credibility over the discriminatory and obsessive targeting of Israel. There were even three special sessions held to condemn Israel in 2006 before the Council ever got around to thinking maybe the genocide in Darfur might be a bad thing. I guess they couldn't figure out a way to blame Israel for that. No wonder Mitt Romney also called for a new coalition:

Romney also said he would support a new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together".

"We should develop some of our own - if you will - forums and alliances or groups that have the ability to actually watch out for the world and do what's right", Romney said.

I hear you, Mitt.

Ironically, the UN Human Rights Council was started in 2006 due to the disappointing performance of it's predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. Guess what the big failure of the Commission on Human Rights was ? If you guessed 'discriminating against Israel', you win first prize.

In June 2007, the UN Human Rights Council voted to 'permanently indict' Israel, with Israel being the sole nation in this singular category. No word yet on whether the next special session of the Council to condemn Israel will take place at Auschwitz, so they can put the Jews in yet another 'singular' category. In all, four UN resolutions have been passed against Israel, and none against any other country. None. Maybe the Council heard Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech where Mahmoud said that there aren't any homosexuals in Iran, and forgot about the reason: Iran executes homosexuals. When a member of UN Watch, a United Nations watchdog group, called attention to the inequities of the Council, his speech was banned.

The UN Human Rights Council also condemned 'defamation of religion' following the dustup over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Somebody tell me what this has to do with human rights, please. The resolution was introduced by Pakistan and passed easily, with 16 of the 17 Council members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference voting for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa (anybody notice the miserable human rights records of most of these countries ?). Opposing the resolution were all of the European Union, Japan, Ukraine, and South Korea (aka, the non-repressive regimes). It's pretty ironic that a so-called 'Human Rights Council' would advance a resolution stifling freedom of expression, no ? The resolution claimed that things like the Mohammed cartoons cause "negative stereotyping" of religions and "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism". Right. Everyone knows it's those crazy Methodists who are blowing sh*t up all over the world. Looks like politics rule the day over at the UN, and the wrong politics at that. It's time for the nations that really promote freedom to take the lead. This nonsense has gone on long enough. The UN Human Rights Council is a joke.

Since the Democrats captured congress in 2006, Henry Waxman (D-Cal) has been investigating alleged government misconduct. Actually, he's been doing it for 8 years, but when the Democrats took control, Waxman became chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, which gave him subpoena power and free reign to investigate, in Waxman's own words "everything that the government is involved with". The targets of Waxman's probes have been the Plame farce, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, the mischaracterization of Pat Tillman's death, the 'heroics' of Jessica Lynch, the government of Iraq, Walter Reed Hospital, construction and hiring practices at the US Embassy in Baghdad, Defense and State contracting practices, and Halliburton. Time magazine, in a misleading piece of admiration masquerading as reporting, called Grand Inquisitor Waxman, The Scariest Guy In Washington, due to his carte blanche investigative authority. Oliver North wrote an article about Waxman that offsets some of Time's partisan hype.

Waxman hasn't come up with much of any wrongdoing yet with all his investigating, but as Time said, he has sure produced a lot of newspaper headlines, which is, of course, the point. Actual wrongdoing doesn't need to be uncovered as long as the accusations and allegations are flying around in the mainstream media every day. For any who don't know, 90% of the mainstream media acts as the publics relations arm of the Democratic party (while feigning neutrality, very poorly). The political issues the Democrats want on the front page ARE on the front page. The issues Democrats want ignored ARE ignored. Invariably, the issues are framed and spun to suit the Democrats needs as well. The Republicans have only Fox News and talk radio on their side (and the Democrats are busy trying to censor talk radio. Talk about arrogance).

Between Waxman and Patrick Leahy (D-Hell), who has been investigating the legal firing of 8 US attorneys for about 46 years now, they have also pushed enough paper to destroy the rainforest. Maybe someday, hope against hope, they will actually find that someone somewhere has done somebody or something wrong. I bet Nancy Pelosi is praying for it, just like she prays for Bush to save all those middle class children by expanding the S-CHIP program on the backs of 22 million new smokers (most of whom will be lower income folks, according to the statistics). Amen.

You might be saying to yourself, 'what's wrong with investigating the government ? The government SHOULD be held up to the light and examined', and I agree. However, notice that in the long list of Waxman's investigations, you will only find investigations into alleged Republican misconduct. Mr Waxman doesn't seem to have any interest at all in the John Murthas, Harry Reids, or William Jeffersons in government. It's only Republican skirts he wishes to lift up and peek under. The House Government Reform Committee has become the Republican Government Reform Committee. He isn't investigating "everything that government is involved with", he's investigating "everything that Republicans are involved with". That makes Waxman a partisan witch hunter, not a seeker of truth and justice. Waxman is Torqemada in a three piece suit, seeking out heretics who would stand in the way of Democrat rule.