When the Republican party scored big gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, emerging victorious in those two blue states that voted for Obama only one short year ago, I couldn't help but think of all the pundits and talking heads who giddily predicted years and years of GOP'ers scrounging for food in the political wilderness after Obama's historic 2008 victory and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. 'The political landscape has shifted forever !' proclaimed these sages of punditry (who almost all happen to be Democrats). 'The Reagan Revolution is over ! The GOP is marginalized !,' intoned these bellwethers of bombastic buffoonery (who almost all happen to be Democrats).

As it turns out, forever isn't a very long time when it comes to politics. The Republicans won almost everything yesterday. They even won the one race they lost. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Despite being outspent by a margin of 3-to-1, and despite President Obama bringing his star power to bear by campaigning for his opponent, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated the Democratic incumbent governor of New Jersey, the billionaire Jon Corzine. New Jersey has been a solid blue state for years, so this was a major 'get' for the GOP. In Virginia, a traditional swing state, the Republicans won the governorship by a landslide. They also won the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General races by landslides. In New York city, Republican Michael Bloomberg (or is he an Independent now ?) won a third term. My liberal television station du jour (I chose to watch CNN attempt to explain the voting results away), kept saying that the wealthy Bloomberg "bought the vote." Notably, I never heard CNN say a word about the wealthy Democrat Corzine attempting to buy the vote in New Jersey, which is one reason I'm referring to them as my liberal television station du jour.

CNN came up with a variety of rationalizations in an attempt to explain away yesterday's GOP wins. Here are the top few:

1) The Democrats weren't energized like they were in 2008. They have a post-Obama hangover.
2) The opposition party always wins the year after a presidential election.
3) These are only local races with no national significance, and no significance in 2010.
4) Crazed wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Partiers have whipped the conservatives up into conniptions, causing them to turn out at the voting booth (and may I add, we're lucky nobody was hurt).

What CNN seems unable to grasp are the actual facts. The economy stinks, Obama is running the deficit through the roof, Americans are against ObamaCare, Americans don't want a bunch of new taxes during a recession, Americans don't want their electricity bills to go up, Americans are alarmed at all the government expansion and overreach, joblessness is around 17%, etc, etc.

Now let me get back to the one significant bright spot for the Democrats in yesterday's elections, if you can call it a bright spot (CNN certainly tried to make the claim). In New York state's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman and Republican party candidate Dede Scozzafava in what can only be termed a comedy of errors by the Republican keystone cops in New York. The GOP really had to bollux things up to lose this race. The 23rd district had been controlled by Republicans for a century. All the GOP had to do was nominate an actual Republican and this race was theirs, but they couldn't even manage that much. Instead, they stuck Scozzafava on the ballot, a Democrat in Republican clothing. Predictably, most Republicans didn't like her, though Newt Gingrich proved he cares more about party power than principle by backing her. Shame on Newt. Scozzafava faltered badly in the polls and unknown third party candidate Hoffman surged into the lead as several prominent Republicans supported him. The Republicans still would have won the race with Hoffman, but then Scozzafava dropped out and stabbed the stumblebum GOP in the back by supporting the Democrat Owens. With Scozzafava dropping out so late in the race, her name still appeared on the ballot, and enough party line Republicans voted for her to hand the race to the Democrat. Just brilliant, GOP. Just brilliant. Owens wins without a majority of the vote, even though the majority of the voters were against him. I only hope the Republican party bosses in New York stay away from sharp objects, or they might hurt themselves.

In a mind-numbing bit of illogical gymnastics, CNN claimed the Owens win illustrated that the GOP can't win with far right candidates like Hoffman. I kid you not. Here's Hoffman, who has never run for political office in his life, who is not anywhere close to being a polished politician (which is a plus in my book), running as a third party candidate against a career Democrat, with a Republican candidate scraping off critical votes and endorsing his opponent, and Hoffman still almost pulls it off, losing by only 3-4 points. And CNN decides Hoffman is one of the wingnut fringe. Such "analysis" makes CNN the wingnut fringe, if you ask me. Larry King couldn't say Hoffman's name without referring to him as "far right" or "wingnut," due to Hoffman's affinity for the Tea Party movement. Hoffman, btw, stands for fiscal responsiblity, reducing the debt, low taxes, etc. You know, all those "wingnutty" ideas that all sane people favor.

I'm just glad I didn't watch MSNBC. Has that station accused any Republicans of stealing elections yet ? If not, give them time. I'm sure they will, as soon as Keith Olbermann finds out there was a Republican working for the Board of Elections somewhere in New Jersey.

"As Politico reported, there's growing concern among some GOP leaders that controversial commentators and far-right conservatives have hijacked the message. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin appeal to the base – and you certainly need that base to win elections. But in an age when 42 percent of Americans call themselves Independents – you can't win with just the base, either." – Katie Couric, CBS News (link)

This is typical of the advice liberals like Katie Couric have for the Republican party. It always boils down to an appeal for Republicans to become more like…Democrats. You know, moderate (ha ha). Some fainthearted GOP leaders agree, fearing they will lose elections if they don't become Democrats in Repubican clothing, aka RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). Former Republican Arlen Specter (?-PA) is a perfect example of a Republican who wanted to become more like a Democrat to win an election, and Specter finally did complete his Democratic sex change operation, though it doesn't appear that Specter's political chameleon routine is working. Some voters actually can remember what happened prior to yesterday, and Specter is trailing in the polls. What a great loss it would be to cull a distinguished gentleman like Arlen Specter from the ranks of Congress. And by "great loss," I mean, good riddance (along with about 500 other Congressional denizens I'd like to kick to the curb).

Katie Couric and "some GOP leaders" are concerned that conservative commentators and far-right conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have "hijacked the message."

Hijacked the message ? Hijacked what message ? The message that was rejected halfway through George W. Bush's second term ? The message that led to $4 trillion more in federal debt, the creation of the first new (unfunded) Medicare program in 40 years, two long term wars, massive increases in government spending in nearly every department, massive pork barrel spending, and corruption ? You mean, THAT message ?

Yes, God forbid that Sarah Palin would hijack that message. The problem of the Republicans isn't that their message might be hijacked by Palin, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or anyone else. The problem of the Republicans is that they hijacked the message themselves. They sold out their conservative principles on nearly every front, and used divisive social issues like gay marriage and abortion to gin up the base come election time (note – the GOP never really tries to reverse Roe v. Wade by proposing a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, if you notice. They only use it as a wedge issue. Therefore, they must like the wedge issue being in place to be used as a political football).
The Republicans have their version of the divide and conquer strategy, just like the Democrats do. The Dems use class warfare, phony racism charges, etc.

My advice to the Republicans would be just the opposite of Katie Couric's. My advice would be to listen to those conservative commentators. Listen to those "far-right conservatives," and listen to those Tea Party protesters (who are independents, btw). My advice would be – return to the long abandoned ideas of limited government, low taxes, and individual liberty. Get the government out of everybody's personal business. Foster the free market to help small business, not to help the mega-corporations and the government destroy the market via their hegemonic dominance. Balance the budget and start paying down the debt, so America's future isn't being washed down the drain. Tell the American people the truth, for once. We've had enough of the lies and spin for political gain. Start implementing policies that benefit America and American workers, instead of policies that benefit foreign nations. That, in turn, will reduce the cancer of government dependency that the Democrats love to foster. Don't become more like Democrats. Become the ANSWER to the ennui of the Democrats fatal socialist policies.

The Republicans don't need to worry about their message being hijacked. They need to worry about formulating a message, because right now, it isn't being articulated, if it exists at all.

Alternately, the Republicans could just dissolve and make way for something new. I wouldn't mind that either. This country needs something new. The majority of this country disagrees with the Democrats on most issues, but the Republicans are a lousy alternative. The two parties are selling us down the river, and I don't see any healthy change coming from either of them. All I see is continual change for the worse, with the public relations figurehead Obama being but the latest example. The citizens are always faced with the same political Coke vs. Pepsi choice. What we aren't told is that both Coke and Pepsi are bad for you.

First, we had months of fretting about "death panels" after Sarah Palin used those two words in a Tweet on Twitter (who come up with these silly internet names anyway ? "Google," "Yahoo," "Twitter." "I taut I taw a puddy tat." Do we have any grownups on the web ?). Then we had the dustup about covering illegal immigrants, resulting in the infamous "You Lie!" comment from Joe Wilson (R-SC).

Now it's come to this. Here's Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), allegedly summing up the Republican Health Care plan. This is about as dumbed down as it gets.

There you have it. For everyone out there who didn't know the GOP plan before, you know it now. It's 1) Don't get sick, 2) And if you do get sick, 3) Die quickly.

This sets the new low bar in dumbed down political rhetoric. Rep. Grayson's Florida constituents must be mighty proud of electing him to office right about now. Predictably, GOP'ers in Congress were outrageously outraged over Grayson's inane remarks. GOP'ers thought they were the only ones allowed to make stupid "they want to kill your grandma" type statements.

When GOP members demanded an apology for the remarks, Grayson said the following on the House floor, "“I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

It's a "holocaust" now ? Suddenly, Moammar Qadhafi's speech in front of the U.N. is starting to sound coherent by comparison. Forget about finding grownups on the web. We need a few more grownups in Congress.

I searched the internet looking for the Republican "Die Quickly" plan, but I'm sad to report I couldn't locate it. All I could find was this plan, this plan, and this plan, in addition to some current state plans like Massachusetts' RomneyCare, or Cover Florida from Governor Charlie Crist.

Of course, we can always listen to twits like Alan Grayson instead, as he attempts (successfully) to get his 15 minutes of fame.

President Bush tried to cut Medicare spending several times to trim the deficits and offset rising health care costs. Each time, he was vilified by the Democrats, and Democrats voted as a bloc against those cuts, defeating them every time. In 2008, they even overrode a Bush veto to stop Bush from implementing Medicare cuts. The various sizes of the proposed Bush Medicare cuts were between $35 billion over five years, $105 billion over ten years, and $278 billion over ten years.

Now, it's all somehow different. President Obama is calling for $622 billion in Medicare/Medicaid cuts over ten years, far more than Bush ever proposed, and the Democrats have suddenly come to the realization that the Medicare entitlements are unsustainable, threatening to bankrupt the nation, and will drive the deficits through the roof. I assume the Democrats came to this realization the same day Barack Obama became President Of The United States. The same Democrats who opposed Bush's Medicare cuts are perfectly fine with Obama's much larger Medicare cuts. While I'm glad the Democrats have finally awakened somewhat to the reality of the entitlement crisis, their hypocrisy is deafening.

Watch this video, and then tell me if PARTISAN POLITICS isn't the reason behind everything in Washington, D.C. Check out the blather coming from Kennedy and Kerry in particular:

Hard to believe, isn't it ?

Not only are the Democrats proposing huge Medicare/Medicaid cuts in their health care reform bills, but they are trying to pretend their Medicare cuts aren't really cuts at all (the 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' defense), and they are trying to silence and threaten those who point out the obvious, that yes, Medicare cuts really are cuts, and will impact patients.

Humana, a large private Medicare Advantage insurer, sent out letters to it's customers, pointing out that Medicare Advantage services will have to be curtailed under the Democratic health reform bills. The noble Obama administration, staunch defenders of the Constitution, leapt into action against Humana, ordering it to cease and desist engaging in all that, um, free speech. Then the government launched an investigation of Humana. Democrats denounced Humana as liars, and when some Republicans pointed out an inconvenient truth, that Humana was right, Democrats went into Pavlovian mode and started demonizing Republicans as handmaidens of the insurance industry. What a creepy and shameless bunch these Dems have become.

Even more inconveniently for the Democrats, the Congressional Budget Office backs up Humana and the Republicans. The CBO says Medicare benefits will be cut. Combined with the previous CBO statements – that Medicare premiums will rise under ObamaCare, that overall health care costs will rise under ObamaCare, that Medicare prescription drug prices will increase by 20% under ObamaCare, and that ObamaCare isn't paid for and will add to the deficit, it appears the Democrats are merely trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

The silver lining to all this is, there really isn't a health care reform bill yet. There are a series of bills (all deeply flawed), so there's still time to change the wrongheadedness in the bills. We all want to do something to reform health care, but we don't want to do the WRONG thing. We don't want to make the health care system even worse. The Democrats are looking to finish up and vote on ObamaCare in a couple weeks. Time is running out.

One thing I've never been able to understand in the health care reform debate is why the Republican idea to allow health insurance companies to compete on a nationwide basis isn't incorporated into the health care reform bill(s). President Obama stresses competition as the primary reason for the public option, but every thinking person knows the private sector can't compete with the federal government. If we want competition in a free market, competition must be between those IN THE FREE MARKET. The government isn't part of that.

The reason we don't have a functioning free market in health care is due to the government itself. Ann Coulter's recent column explains it pretty well:

The only reason you can't keep — or often obtain — health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services — i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby — which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

(Note to liberals – Just because it's Coulter saying it doesn't mean it's not true. What I quoted here is ALL true.)

The government has intruded into health care time and again, forcing costs up every step of the way. We have a tightly controlled and mandated health care market, and then the same government agents who created this environment complain about a lack of competition and high prices, when they WON'T ALLOW TRUE FREE MARKET COMPETITION.

The Republicans don't have many good ideas about health care reform, but they have a few. National free market health insurance competition is a good one. So is allowing individuals to make their health care insurance 100% tax deductible. So is tort reform. If President Obama wants the bipartisan bill that he says he does, why aren't any of these things included ?

What we are heading for now is one of two worlds, either 1) a health care reform bill with a public option that will destroy the private insurance industry, resulting in a government insurance monopoly, or 2) a health care reform bill without a public option, and with no cost controls in place for private insurers. This would be a huge giveaway to the insurance companies.

Neither of these options is acceptable, and in both cases, the government will be FORCING people to buy health insurance. Some choice.

The government should go back to the drawing board. There's no reason a real bipartisan bill cannot be produced that bends down the health care cost curve and gives us a free market as well. What the government should do is oversee the free market, not trample all over it. We should have a bill that doesn't allow insurers to eliminate pre-existing conditions, that doesn't allow insurers to drop or deny coverage, and that doesn't allow insurers to profit excessively, but as free citizens in a free country, we should have the right to get the health insurance coverage that WE want, not what the government dictates for us.

- 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.

President Obama is a fiscal hawk. I know that might sound strange to some of you (the sane ones), seeing as how Obama passed an $800 billion stimulus package, a record breaking, pork-laden $410 billion Omnibus bill, and a record breaking $3.55 trillion budget during the worst recession in 70 years. Yes, Obama will have a $1.8 trillion deficit his first year in office and is projected to run up more deficits than every other President in history COMBINED. Yes, we have committed up to $24 trillion to fight the recession, and Obama is trying to spend an additional $200 billion per year or so on health care reform, and he's only been in office for SIX MONTHS, for chrissakes….

But Obama is a fiscal hawk. Check it out. He has made good on his promise to trim $102 million from the federal budget. That's right. $102 Million with an 'M', as in, a drop in the ocean when Obama is spending trillions at the same time.

Yes We Can !

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag actually had the nerve to say the following words about Obama's pathetic budget cuts, "These savings reflect the president's belief that even small savings can add up."

Too bad we don't use firing squads anymore.
===
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) takes his job very seriously. He would never shirk his sworn duty to the American people. Here's Conyers at the National Press Club, talking about reading bills:

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

That's right, Conyers. How can they expect an important man like yourself to actually read and comprehend the legislation you are about to pass into law ? It's not like that's your job or anything…..wait a minute. It IS your job, you arrogant chunk of cow flop. That's why you're in Congress, and here you are, brazenly spitting directly in the faces of the people who elected you.

Why don't we use firing squads anymore ?
===
Ohio Senator George Voinovich (he's still in office ? Who knew ?) is unhappy that the southerners are taking over the GOP:

“We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”

Yes, it's too bad that Ohio doesn't have, like, a Republican Senator to whom Ohioans can relate. Ohio only has Voinovich.

What's wrong with southerners, anyway ? The Civil War is WAAAAAY over.
===
Republicrat Arlen Specter (D-PA) is another man of conviction on Capitol Hill, and his voting record proves it. The last time Specter was up for re-election, in 2003-4, he was a Republican. Specter voted with Republicans 85% of the time back then. Now it's 2009-10, and Specter is up for re-election again. Back in April, Specter found himself hopelessly behind in the Republican primary polls, so, being a man of honor and conviction, Specter switched parties and became a Democrat. Congressional Quarterly did a study and found that since he switched parties, Specter now votes with the Democrats 85% of the time. Presto-change-o. Will the real Arlen Specter please stand up ? Then again, how about Arlen Specter, whoever he is, sits down ? It seems the only conviction Specter has is the conviction that he should be re-elected to office at all costs.
===
On the health care reform front, the CBO has scored a TKO on the House health reform bill. President Obama said he would not sign a health care reform bill that added to the deficit (thank God. It's bad enough to implement tax increases in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years), and the CBO has shown that the House bill doesn't cut the mustard. Keith Hennessey has put the numbers into graphic form:

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for the House, unless John Conyers is too busy to drive to work, of course.

I suppose I should write about Sarah Palin resigning as the Governor of Alaska, since she's been the subject of wall-to-wall news coverage since friday. The teevee talking heads have been all atwitter with their uninformed opinions (they range from "Palin is an out-of-the-box genius thinker" to "Palin is an idiot").

Let's see, what can I add to that discussion ?

Probably not much, but I see Palin as neither a genius nor an idiot. She became an instant sensation for the Republican party when John McCain selected her to be his Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. Rumor has it that McCain wanted to select Joe Lieberman, but was convinced to pick Palin instead, because conservatives weren't too happy about having a liberal Democrat (on everything but the war) as McCain's running mate. Palin fit the GOP bill as both a social and fiscal conservative, and BONUS!, she was a woman (and still is, in spite of liberal protestations to the contrary).

After Palin made her debut as McCain's running mate, McCain overtook Barack Obama in the polls. Palin excited the GOP base and many women voters, though later her inexperience on national issues would become a drawback.

The Palin phenomenon brought out the liberal hate machine like nothing I have ever witnessed before in my lifetime. They attacked her appearance, her husband, her children, her state, her hometown, her accent, her clothes, and anything they could dream up. More lies were told about Sarah Palin than I can even count. Among the liberal falsehoods were – Palin wanted to ban books, Palin didn't believe in sex education, Palin was a member of a secessionist party, Palin faked her pregnancy to cover up her daughter's pregnancy, Palin wanted creationism taught in schools, Palin's son was forced into the military for vandalizing buses, Palin cut the budget for special needs children…..and there are TONS more. They are all lies, and almost all were repeated by the mainstream media. This is in addition to Palin being called a b*tch, a Nazi, a hick, a cheerleader, a bimbo, an airhead, a sexpot, a slut, a whore, etc, etc. Pure hate from many of those "tolerant" liberals (who are really elitist, sexist, classist, anti-christian frauds).

And that was only during the presidential campaign. The attacks on Palin have NEVER stopped. She has had no less than 15 spurious ethics complaints brought against her by her opponents. ALL have been dismissed. I have written about them before. Think about this. That's 15 ethics complaints brought against Palin in only 2 1/2 years as the Governor of Alaska. Do you think someone was out to get her ? The answer is pretty obvious.

But just because people were out to get her is no reason for Palin to allow herself to be gotten, and in my opinion, that's just what she did by resigning. In addition to letting down the voters who elected her, she has let the haters harass her out of office. By doing that, she is only encouraging even more such lowlife tactics in the future, because now the lowlifes will see that their phony tactics can work. Sarah the Barracuda has become Sarah the Guppie, and if she has presidential aspirations (which I actually doubt), she just made it a lot tougher for herself by giving ammunition to her enemies.

Score one for the haters.

And here's a parting shot from one of the HuffPo haters, who wrote a piece called 'Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform'. Stay classy.

“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.

Recent polling shows that Americans increasingly have no party identification. There are more Independent voters than those having allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. Here's a chart from Pew Research:

The above chart shows that Republican voter identification has plummeted since 2004. Democratic voter identification has remained relatively stable (though it has dropped since Obama became president), and Independent voter identification has risen steadily. It's not too difficult to figure out why the Republicans have lost ground. After 8 years of Bush, I can summarize it in three words – war, deficits, recession. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones. The Republican party has become marginalized.

Now for the twist. If you remove political parties from the equation and just ask the voters about their political ideology, you get a far different picture of America. The following chart comes from a recent Gallup poll:

Suddenly, conservatives rule, with moderates a close second. Liberals are marginalized. This gives credence to the idea that we are a center-right nation (75% conservative or moderate).

So, why the disconnect between the low poll numbers of Republicans and the high poll numbers of conservatives ? After all, aren't Republicans supposed to be the conservative party ?

My answer is, yes, they are SUPPOSED to be the conservative party, but that's not what they were during the Bush years. They were just the opposite, so it's not a surprise that lots of conservatives and many moderates abandoned them. That also explains the huge rise in Independent voters. The voters didn't change ideologically and become a lot more liberal. The voters remained pretty much the same. It was the Republicans who changed. It was the Republicans who abandoned conservatism.

Ronald Reagan once said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." I bet a lot of conservatives feel the same way about the Republican Party these days.

To the deep thinkers in the Republican Party (if there are any left) – If you want to get back into power, the answer is staring you right in the face. Return to conservative principles. And then don't ABANDON them if you do acquire power.

To the deep thinkers in the Democratic Party (if there are any left) – If you want to stay in power, forget about the liberals (who else are the liberals going to vote for, anyway ?), and move to the middle, where America is. If you do that, the Democrats can remain in control for quite a while. If you don't, you'll be kicked to the curb just like the Republicans were. So far, it looks to me like the Dems want to be kicked to the curb.

My advice to the nation would be to kick both these corruptocratic parties to the curb, but that's probably not realistic. The corruptocrats have rigged the game heavily in their favor. A poor Libertarian or other third partier has a long, steep, uphill battle in front of them. One reason the Big Two parties are so corrupt is that they CAN BE. They're a duopoly.

And as I said in yesterday's post, FREE CHEERIOS FROM TYRANNY !

No justice, no peace.

An 88-year old racist cretin named James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. on wednesday, killing one of the security guards, Stephen Tyrone Jones. Sigh. Another senseless tragedy committed by another senseless idiot, the third act of domestic terrorism by an individual gunman in the last couple weeks.

Brunn appears to be your classic white supremacist, neo-Nazi, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying bigot, the kind who worships Adolph Hitler and believes the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion is proof positive that the Jews are involved in some dark conspiracy to take over the world.

In other words, he's a dumb-ass. Now he's a murderer too. I can't believe such people still exist in this country.

Speaking of dumb-asses, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wasted no time in politicizing the tragedy. Brunn's attack was Olby's lead story last night, and he called Brunn a "right-wing extremist" about 700 times to make sure his viewers got the message that 'it's them thar nasty conservatives what dun it.' Somehow, he even managed to blame the shooting on Rush Limbaugh (not kidding). Using that unique Olbermann anti-logic of his, Keith-boy said something to the effect of "Limbaugh criticizes Obama by using words, others hear words, so then they go kill Jews at the Holocaust Museum." I'm paraphrasing, of course. Olby wasn't quite that coherent. By tonight's show, I expect Keith Olbermann will obtain affirmative proof that James von Brunn is the de-facto head of the Republican Party.

For the life of me, I don't know why anyone watches that show (other than someone like myself, who watches it on occasion for blogging ideas. Olby's lunacy is an inspiration in that regard). For a guy who raves on about alleged right-wing haters non-stop, nobody pushes more hate than Olby (btw, last night's Worst Person In The World wasn't James von Brunn. It was Michelle Bachman (R-MN), who misspoke in a speech by saying the word "economists" where she should have said "economics." That made her worst in the world. Again, not kidding).

But enough about K. Ubermoron. I only brought him up as an example. The real question Olby brings to mind is:

Why are neo-nazis always referred to as right-wingers ?

This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me. The Nazis were the National SOCIALIST Party in Germany. That's what 'nazi' means. Socialists are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from right-wingers. Socialists (and fascists and communists too) are all about government control. Right-wingers are about limited government. Socialists are about the supremacy of the collective good, as was Adolph Hitler. "Third Reich" translates to "Third Empire." Right-wingers are about the supremacy of individual liberty. When you talk about right-wing extremism, you should be talking about anarchist types, or at least anti-government types, like Timothy McVeigh. Brunn has some of those characteristics, but the neo-nazi stuff doesn't fit. Neither does some other stuff Brunn wrote, which you'll hear about later. Brunn often ended his political diatribes with "Heil Hitler." That kind of stuff makes my head want to explode.

A racist like James von Brunn is a person advocating for his collective, white people, over the interests of others. Racism IS identity politics, and it's not right-wingers who are it's primary practitioners. That comes from the other side.

It isn't right-wingers who are against the Jews either. Conservatives support Israel to a much greater extent than do liberals (though the majority of American Jews voted for Obama. Go figure). The examples of anti-semitic sentiment from the left are rife, but the latest comes from Obama's former pastor, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In a recent interview, Wright was asked if he has talked to Obama recently. Wright's reply was, "them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me."

Such a man of God, that one.

The Republican party was founded by Abraham Lincoln as the anti-slavery party, and during the civil rights era of the 60's, it was southern Democrats who still supported Jim Crow laws and fought against integration, not Republicans. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

In spite of all this, scumbags like James von Brunn are always labeled as right-wing extremists. I don't get it. Maybe it's because the ones doing the labeling come from the left. I don't know.

James von Brunn's political views can be tracked, because Brunn has a number of unhinged political diatribes scattered around the internet. Brunn hated Obama, like any white supremacist would, and there is evidence he belonged to the Obama Birther movement, which claims Obama has never produced valid evidence of his American citizenship, thus disqualifying him from being President. Brunn apparently detested Marxism, lending credence to the right-wing label, but he also hated Bush, neoconservatism, and Bill O'Reilly (along with LOTS of other people. Brunn was a veritable buffet of hatred). Neoconservatism is equated with Jews by folks like Brunn. Brunn was also into conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement. If you want to delve into this guy's twisted brain, you can find some if his writings at the above link, or read one of his sick tirades here.

If you read James von Brunn's lunacy, make sure to take a shower afterward, so the filth doesn't stick. This is a public service announcement and a warning. I don't want to be accused of promoting violence by some fool like Keith Olbermann.

Conclusion – James von Brunn exhibits some traits of right-wing extremism, but he also exhibits some traits of left-wing extremism. In the end, he's just a twisted horse's you-know-what, as is Keith Olbermann and the rest of the dishonest political philosophizers (yeah, I said 'philosophizers.' I'm the Worst Person In The World too). But I won't be blaming Olbermann for anyone's murder. I still believe in free speech. I only blame James von Brunn. It's called personal responsibility, as opposed to partisan hogwash. If I was into partisan hogwash, I'd be asking the same questions liberals asked of Bush following 9/11 – Why isn't President Obama stopping these domestic terrorist attacks by known radicals ? Why is he asleep at the switch ? Why doesn't he care ? Because I'm not into partisan hogwash, I won't ask those questions. Oops, too late.

I'm on President Obama's mailing list. In the last couple weeks, I've received multiple e-mails from his "grassroots" organization, Obama For America (which is really just the Democratic National Committee. There's nothing grassroots about it). These e-mails are about health care reform, and they are always the same. They state that Obama's health care plan is designed to reduce costs, improve health care quality, and provide universal health care coverage. Obama For America/DNC then asks me to e-mail my Congresspersons, voicing my support for the health care plan, and OBA/DNC also asks for a donation. OBA/DNC informs me Congress is hard at work formulating a plan for health care (which actually means it isn't OBAMA'S health care plan at all. It's Congress' health care plan).

Only politicians are ever this brazen. Think about what OBA/DNC is asking me to do. They are asking me to support a health care plan that has not yet been designed. They are asking me to support a health care plan without providing any substantive details about the plan whatsoever. The only details they do provide are regarding electronic recordkeeping and preventitive care. Sorry, OBA/DNC, that isn't much of an answer. They say the plan will "reduce costs," and by that they mean it will cost a bundle (there was a $634 billion "down payment" in deficit spending already budgeted for Obama's health care plan). They provide no details about how the health care plan will be paid for.

Then OBA/DNC has the nerve to criticize their opponents, by saying their opponents will "spread fear and confusion" about their wondrous unexplained health care plan. Well, I don't know about the fear part, but OBA/DNC certainly has me confused. I have no idea what they want me to support.

And I don't want to be a stickler here, but I'm also wondering why the President of the United States needs donations from me to pass health care reform. He's ALREADY THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS PARTY HOLDS THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. The Democrats are in full control of the government. If they can't pass health care reform without wringing a few more bucks from my wallet, that's their problem, not mine.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't usually support things I know next to nothing about, and I don't support plans that are nothing more than vague sound bytes at this point.

The OBA/DNC e-mails tell me Congress will have a health care reform bill ready by the end of July.

Mr. President, e-mail me back about a week after your health care plan is spelled out, and then I will tell you whether I can support it or not. Until then, spare me the political rhetoric. I only sign on to hopenchange when I know exactly what that means. Maybe your Kool-Aid drinkers are impressed by your superficial blather, but I'm not one of them.

Btw, the Republicans (the alleged party of 'no'), already have a health care plan. It was designed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who is a former doctor, and a few others. It's called the Patient's Choice Act Of 2009. It has no chance of being implemented, of course, but if you're interested in reading it for academic purposes, follow the above link. If you want briefer summaries, opinions, and comments from the sponsor's of the bill, go here.

Here's a brief overview from Senator Coburn:

"The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable and accessible. The American people deserve health care reform that will work, not another round of so-called reform that repeats the same failed policies of the past. Congress and the administration have the opportunity to pursue bold reform and a fresh start. The Patients’ Choice Act will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt and waiting lines.”

According to Americans For Tax Reform, the Republicans health care plan is revenue neutral. That sounds a little better than something that requires a $634 billion "down payment," as Obama's undefined plan does. It's at least worth considering.

To all Republicans in Congress who are afraid to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor because she is a Latina….

Are you kidding me ?!?! Grow a pair.

Sotomayor's ethnicity has nothing to do with her qualifications (or lack thereof) for the Supreme Court. Sure, the Democrats will play the race card (as they always do) if you oppose her, but those same Democrats had no problem opposing a Latino Bush nominee, Miguel Estrada, to the D.C. Appeals Court in 2001. The Democrats filibustered Estrada's nomination, and Sotomayor's own legal group helped sink Estrada. Somehow, the Democrats opposition to Estrada didn't alienate the entire Hispanic vote, which is what some GOP wimps fear if they oppose Sotomayor.

I'm not even saying Sotomayor shouldn't be confirmed. It's too early to make that judgement, but, as I outlined in a previous post, there are some significant questions that must be asked of Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, and if Republicans don't ask them, nobody will.

The Washington Examiner describes the alleged "box" the GOP is in regarding Sotomayor:

Some Republican operatives fear that GOP senators will dig through Sotomayor’s past but do little about it during the nomination hearings out of fear that heavy criticism will paint them as insensitive. Sessions in particular has a problem. He lost his 1986 bid to become a federal judge after Judiciary Committee Democrats accused him of being a racist, citing past statements about the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Democrats and especially the liberal blogosphere are watching Sessions closely, looking for any move they could label a racial attack, and their scrutiny could undermine his ability to go after Sotomayor on her record.

“Unless a shoe drops, I think there will be limited discussion and then her nomination will pass,” one GOP operative said.

Complicating matters for the GOP is that Sotomayor is not just a minority, she is Hispanic. Hispanics represent a fast-growing segment of voters whom Republicans hope to win over.

“Republicans want to placate their base, but they aren’t going to want to alienate Hispanics,” Soper said.

What a crock that is. What, because Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was accused of being a racist by Democrats 23 years ago, now Sotomayor gets a free pass, even though Sotomayor has made her own race-based comments that need further clarification ? I don't think so.

For whatever reason, the Republicans have never confronted Democratic Supreme Court nominees with the same level of bloodlust in which Democrats have gone after Republican nominees (think Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas). Bork's nomination was so hostile that it even gave rise to a new verb – to get "borked." It's worth listening to "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy's disgusting attack on Bork one more time:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

Democrats are even warning Republicans not to go after Sotomayor, she of the inspiring story, who went from a Bronx housing project to the Supreme Court. President Obama referred to Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey," as if she is Sojourner Truth or something. Do you remember anyone ever talking about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas like that ? Thomas journey was every bit as extraordinary as Sotomayor's, if not more so. Here's a bit of it:

Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, impoverished African American community. His family are descendents of American Slaves in the American South. His father left his family when he was two years old. After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to Savannah, Georgia, where their mother worked as a domestic employee. Thomas' sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point.

When Thomas was 7, the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Anderson's wife, Christine, in Savannah. Anderson had little formal education, but had built a fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known." When Thomas was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset. His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."

Yet, the centerpiece of the Thomas confirmation hearings was a pubic hair in a Coca-Cola, because, you know, you can't have an inspirational story if you're a conservative. If you're a conservative, you get the "high-tech lynching of a black man."

Republicans have to get over this fear of being called racists, especially when it's coming from loons, such as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who said the following about Republican opposition to Sotomayor:

"I think that she’s [Sotomayor] going to have to defend everything that Republicans choose to attack her on, that’s the nature of the adversarial process at this point. In fact I think that it is, it’s rich to have Rush Limbaugh, he of Barack The Magic Negro fame, attacking people for being racists at this point. I mean, certainly the attack on Sotomayor, to the extend that it is based on her race, to the extent that the attacks on her are based on the idea that she was an affirmative action choice – I think that’s probably the weakest ammunition they’re going to have against her. I mean you don’t get to be summa cum laude at Princeton on the basis of some sort of favoritism, you don’t get to be Phi Beta Kappa on the basis of somebody trying to do you a favor or trying to redress some past wrong. So if they want to lead with attacking her on the basis of race and affirmative action, I think it means she’s going to have a pretty easy confirmation process."

Notice how Maddow erects a straw man by saying Republicans will attack Sotomayor based upon her race, when, of course, Republicans will do no such thing. Republicans don't care about Sotomayor's race any more than they cared about the race of Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, or a host of others. It appears only liberal nutjobs like Rachel Maddow care about race, and who fricking cares what they think ???? The race card is about the sorriest card in the deck these days.

To the fearful GOP'ers – do your job and ask the tough questions. You don't have to act like the vile Ted Kennedy did with Bork, but this is important. A Supreme Court nomination is for LIFE. You don't get any do overs.

In my last post, I touched on the problem of our huge unfunded entitlement liabilities, primarily Social Security and Medicare. Yesterday, the Obama administration admitted the problem exists. Yippee ! This may not seem like such a big step forward, but it is. Remember, for years the Democrats in Congress denied there was any problem whatsoever. They kept saying SS and Medicare were in fine shape for decades. Little to worry about. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in 2005:

“Today’s report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place — the minds of Republicans. In reality, the program is on solid ground for decades to come.”

That Harry is such a kidder. Fellow kidder and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said this in 2005:

"There is no Social Security crisis. We all agree that there is a problem down the road that we should address before it becomes a bigger problem.”

But Pelosi has taken no action on Social Security or Medicare since becoming House leader. None. She also helped shoot down all previous Republican attempts at reform.

The Associated Press reports on the Obama administrations response to a Trustee report detailing the dire financial straits of SS and Medicare:

Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

Medicare's condition is more precarious.

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.

Did you catch that last part ? SS and Medicare are NOT BACKED BY ANY ACTUAL ASSETS, and funding them would require the government to BORROW MONEY OR RAISE TAXES. In other words, the government spent your trust funds. I've been trying to make people aware of this for years, and this has to be the first time in recorded history that our mainstream media has admitted the truth about our Ponzi scheme SS and Medicare "trust funds." Halellujah !!!

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Of course, the AP is also admitting that our wonderful, compassionate politicians in Washington D.C. have been ripping us off for trillions and trillions of dollars for several decades, but I don't expect Obama or Congress to appoint any blue ribbon investigative panels or independent prosecutors to look into the matter anytime soon. We'd have to put a LOT of people in jail, and if we did put the deserving Congressers in jail for SS and Medicare fraud, well, let's just say the Democrats wouldn't be the majority party any longer.

Hate to say 'I told you so' to some of my more doubting readers, but I told you so. The federal government is worse than Enron and worse than Madoff. Far worse.

Here's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner:

"The longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be."

That's right, Tim. Btw, haven't Republicans been saying the same thing for years and years ? Yes, they have, including former President Bush.

The bottom line here is – get ready for massive tax increases. Massive. And lots of them.

The coup de grace of Democratic bs also came from Pelosi yesterday. Guess who San Fran Nan blames for the SS and Medicare crises she didn't think even existed previously ? If you said "Bush," you win a cigar. From cnsnews.com :

"The Trustee's reports reveal that, just as they left behind a record of recession, deficits and debt, the Bush administration's economic and fiscal mismanagement undermined the strength of Social Security and Medicare,” Pelosi said Tuesday in a news release. "The previous administration's shortsighted economic policies and fiscal recklessness have made the task of strengthening Social Security and Medicare for the future more difficult."

Un-be-liev-able. I better stop now, before I unleash a string of profanity aimed at our "esteemed" Speaker of the House. Is this woman genetically incapable of honesty ? She has no business leading the Democratic party in the House, or leading anything else, for that matter.

Last friday's Glenn Beck show was a townhall meeting with several Tea Party protesters. Needless to say, I found myself agreeing with much of the sentiment expressed. Two main themes were repeated by several of the Tea Partiers – 1) The mainstream media completely misrepresented the Tea Party protests (no doubt about that), and 2) The two party system is broken. The Tea Partiers looked at both Democrats and Republicans as betrayers of the public, and betrayers of the Constitution (the media ludicrously portrayed this sentiment as 'rightwing extremist racists against Obama for no good reason').

Those Tea Partiers are some smart folks. They give me hope.

I spend most of my time on this blog criticizing the political left, because they are the statists, the totalitarians who believe big government is the answer to everything. Such a threat to individual liberty, our Constitution, our founding principles, and our country cannot be overstated. I will resist that to my dying breath. After a 20th century in which Americans shed so much blood fighting fascism and communism, I'll never accept those very things in my own country.

Some people, mainly liberals, think my criticisms of the left mean I am the reincarnation of George W. Bush. It's as if they think there is only Michael Moore or Dick Cheney, and nothing in between. They'd be wrong. My contempt for Republicans is only slightly less than my contempt for Democrats. While the Republicans SAY they stand for limited government as prescribed by the founding fathers, which is a natural attraction for me, the Bush administration proved otherwise. We've seldom seen such an increase in government as we did with the Bush administration and his Republican Congress (at least until Obama came along and made the Bushies look like small government types by comparison, no small feat). I look at the Republicans as big government, and the Democrats as bigger government. That's a Hobson's choice I've never been comfortable with. I invariably enter the voting booth thinking, 'should I vote for the Republican just to vote against the liberal Democrat, or should I vote for a third party candidate I actually believe in, but who has no chance of winning ?'

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Many Tea Party protesters feel the same, and I talk to lots of people who think the Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same corrupt coin. The people feel helpless, because the two big parties form a virtual duopoly, with so much money and power that the game is heavily rigged in their favor. More people categorize themselves as Independents than as members of either of the two big parties, and I am one of those.

I ask the readers, where do you stand on the political spectrum ? Maybe you are a Libertarian. You could be a Libertarian or have Libertarian leanings, and not even know it, so I'm going to link you to the world's smallest political quiz, which is designed to tell you where you stand politically.

Take the test, and let me know how you scored. It's a very short test. I come out as a slightly right-leaning moderate Libertarian, which is pretty accurate.

You can find out more about the Libertarian party here.

After 34 years as a Republican politician, Sen. Arlen Specter (?-PA), at 79 years of age, has finally figured it out….he's a Democrat.

Here's Specter's statement about making the switch:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

As you can see, Arlen Specter is making his decision based upon his own deeply held personal convictions.

The fact that Specter's Pennsylvania Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, was leading Specter by 21 points in the polls was just a convenient coincidence, I guess. And as for Specter's contention that the Republican party has "moved far to the right," I seem to recall the GOP's last presidential candidate was John McCain, a moderate Republican, hardly a conservative ideologue. I also remember ex-President Bush as not being much of a limited government proponent either. Neither Bush nor McCain was an actual conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who became President the same year Arlen Specter entered the Senate so proudly under "Reagan's Big Tent."

If I didn't know better, I'd think Arlen Specter was nothing more than a conviction-free political opportunist. But whatever Specter's convictions are now, he held far different convictions way, way, way back in March 2009, ONE MONTH AGO. Here's Specter in an interview with The Hill:

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.

Looks like those principles iterated by Specter, such as checks and balances, separation of power, and the importance of the two-party system, all run a distant second to Specter's overarching principle, which is….Arlen Specter comes first.

I just love politicians more and more by the day, don't you ? Their beliefs are malleable, their principles are negotiable, and they lie all the live long day. How could our country ever go wrong with such distinguished leadership ? And some people wonder why I beat my limited government drum over and over. This is why. We're governed by a bunch of narcissistic, power-hungry con-men (and women).

The Democrats, who've been trying to coax Specter over to their side for some time, are "thrilled to have [him]," as President Barockstar Obama said to Specter. Obama also told Specter, “You have my full support," whatever that is supposed to mean. What's Obama going to say, "no, you can't join my party" ??? The Dems don't care who is on their side. They only care that they ARE on their side.

The Dems see Specter as the possible 60th Senate seat, which would give the Dems their coveted filibuster-proof majority, especially if the comedian Al Franken makes an even bigger joke out of the Senate than it already is by becoming the Saturday Night Live Senator from Minnesota.

My personal opinion is that I could care less which party the spine-free Specter represents. In fact, I wish more GOP'ers would defect along with Specter. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins come readily to mind. I could be interested in the Republican party again if they cut loose all the phonies and Democrat-lite impostors, and if the Republicans ever did actually become the conservative party of freedom and limited government they like to say they are. When the inevitable backlash comes against the insane tax and spend policies of the Obamanation, it would be quite nice if the alternative to the Democrats was REALLY A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, and not an alternative full of jellyfish like Arlen Specter. It would be nice if the lines of distinction were clearly drawn when Obama crashes and burns.

My favorite quote regarding Specter's defection came from Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC), who said, "I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” I'll second that. Nothing is gained by abandoning principles, and the only way to ultimate political success is to adhere to your principles and then convince the electorate you're right.

Last fall, when I kept hearing that the Obama presidential campaign would accept fraudulent campaign donations, I decided to test it out for myself. I tried to donate $15 to the Obama campaign using my credit card and a phony name. The name I used even signaled my fraudulent intentions. It was 'Campy Aignfraud,' (as in 'Campaign Fraud'). Not only did the Obama campaign accept my donation, but six months later, they haven't returned the money, and 'Campy' still receives e-mails and literature from them. Here's an e-mail I (Campy) received this morning from Obama's activist arm, which is called Organizing For America:

Campy –

It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.

In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.

Americans…deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.

The e-mail went on to ask for a donation of $25 or more.

I'd like to say this in response to Obama's e-mail – No, I DON'T see things the same way you do, Mr. President, and I object to you "playing the same old political games" even as you complain about others doing the same. Just because I disagree with your enormous unfunded spending plans that will skyrocket the deficits and debt, it doesn't make me an "advocate for the status quo." In fact, those calling for fiscal responsibility from their government are the real advocates for change, not you, Mr. Obama. I also think it's pretty pathetic that you keep lumping everyone who disagrees with you in with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, by saying your critics are "calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle." If that isn't "playing political games," I don't know what is.

First, Obama said that if his enormous and unprecedented stimulus package didn't pass, it would be "catastrophic" for America, that we'd plunge into another Great Depression. Then, Obama said the same thing about his bloated, pork-filled Omnibus spending bill, the largest in history. Now, he's playing the exact same tune about his budget, the largest budget in the history of the country, about $500 billion larger than any other budget. Obama beats the fear drum over and over, and at the same time he has the nerve to talk about ending "divisive politics," and calls for a "truthful debate about real issues." Give me a break already. The government spending our country into third world status and printing trillions of dollars out of thin air IS a real issue. It's the ultimate real issue. It would be nice if our President would engage in a "truthful debate" about it. But he won't. Instead, he demonizes his dissenters. Post-partisan, my butt. Obama's vauge buzzwords and phrases have become very tired. His talk about the "failed policies of the past" about makes me want to throw up. The biggest failed policy of the past I can think of is the endless red ink our government runs up, and Obama is DOUBLING the rate of the red ink. Obama embodies the failed policieis of the past, but this time on steriods.

I did a little checking about where the donations for Obama's Organizing For America group go. It turns out they go directly to the Democratic National Committee. As the Washington Post reports:

The [Organization For America] brought Obama's massive campaign e-mail and address list under the umbrella of the DNC, which is run by Obama's handpicked chairman, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine…DNC financial filings give little indication of the contours of OFA, since the project's expenditures are not separated from the committee's overall operations.

So, in essence, the Organization For America IS the Democratic National Committee, yet the Obamans make the OFA appear to be an independent grassroots movement. There's your hope and change, folks. It's the same old cynical partisan politics as ever.

And did any of you notice that in his April 12th e-mail to 'Campy', Obama is calling for donations to HELP PASS HIS BUDGET, when that budget has ALREADY PASSED IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ???? All that's left is for the two chambers of Congress to reconcile the two versions. Obama doesn't need any money to help pass a budget that has already been passed. That's just misdirection on Obama's part, more smoke and mirrors. He's just trying to raise money for the DNC. The budget has nothing to do with it. Obama is being dishonest and playing political games to fool the rubes.

As for Obama's call for "truthful debate about real issues," the Republicans offered an alternative to Obama's budget that would have resulted in $4.8 trillion LESS in spending over the next 10 years. It was voted down in the House along party lines. While Obama was quick to point out a few weeks ago that the Republicans didn't have an alternative budget, did you ever hear him mention it again once the Republicans proposed one ? No, you didn't.
Obama disproves his own rhetoric time after time. Obama didn't want to consider any alternative budget. Obama just wanted to play partisan politics during his endless campaign.

P.S. – Speaking of Obama's budget, it will be interesting to see how Obama's "tax cuts for 95% of all Americans" fares. In the House version, those tax cuts EXPIRE IN 2010. Yes, that's right. They expire NEXT YEAR. They'd be ONE YEAR tax cuts. What a great help to the middle class, a one time $400 tax cut. Suckers. In the Senate version, they expire in 2012. I guarantee you that none of Obama's spending and tax increases will expire.

Wake up, America. You're being played.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

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.

In 1996, President Clinton declared, "the era of big government is over."

Of course, the era of big government wasn't over, but the rate of government growth slowed a bit during the years 1995-2000, as Clinton and his Republican Congress worked together in a bipartisan, yet acrimonious, fashion.

In 2009, when President Obama unveiled his massive $3.6 trillion budget for 2010, House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, "the era of big government is back."

One wonders if Boehner slept through the entire Bush administration if he only realized big government was back in 2009. President Bush's administration was big government personified. In 2000, federal spending was $1.789 billion. In 2008, it was $2.983 billion. Bush increased the size of government by one third in eight short years. Bush never vetoed a spending bill. Bush started the first major entitlement program since LBJ's Great Society in the 1960's. The Federal Register (the book of regulations) grew immensely under Bush. Bush ran huge deficits and nearly doubled the national debt. He engaged in further centralization of education, fought two wars, and bailed out corporations. Even Bush's one economic conservative idea, tax cuts, has to be put in perspective, because, as nobel winning economist Milton Friedman pointed out, it's actually government spending, not taxation, that is the true gauge of the government's burden on the taxpayers. The money the government spends has to come from somewhere. Borrowing it is every bit as damaging to the people as extracting it via taxation, and even moreso, because interest has to be paid on the borrowed money, and the government will eventually have to spark inflation to manage the debt. The Republicans claim that they favored free markets during the Bush years is a hypocritical farce. If Bush was a fiscal conservative, I'm a chimpanzee.

Even more hypocritically, Democrats, who are pushing for even MORE big government control than the big government Bush, are pretending our current financial problems are all the result of Bush's failed laissez faire, conservative, free market policies. This is in spite of the fact that the last significant deregulation of the banking industry came during the Clinton years, with the repeal of New Deal regulations separating commercial and investment banking. Guess who Clinton's Treasury Secretary was when those regulations were repealed ? That would be Larry Summers, now President Obama's top economic advisor.

What I'm telling you is – you're being served up a big old steaming pile of horse manure by BOTH major political parties. And they both think you're too stupid to figure it out. About the only difference I can determine between the two parties, based upon the Obama administration's performance to date, is this – Republicans will grow spending. Democrats will grow it even more. That leaves Americans with a choice between bad and worse. Back in 2008, when it appeared Obama would become the next president, I wrote that it would be like going from the frying pan into the fire. Sadly, that is exactly how it is turning out.

I'd also like to offer up a correction to the right-wing's charge that Obama is engaging in socialism. I don't think that's completely correct. What Obama is engaging in is more (another) step toward economic fascism. Under socialism, government controls the means of production. Obama isn't really proposing that. We will still have private companies with Obama. Under economic fasicsm, however, government dictates to private companies how they will operate. That fits Obama to a tee. Tell me if these excerpts from the preceding link sound anything like the Obama administration:

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions…Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export…Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry… To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation…many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums…Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests.” But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” (unions) each with Fascist Party members as senior participants.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
—
It's only eight days until the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party at Mall C on April 15th. Be there, or be a government drone square. Volunteer help is also needed. It's time to REALLY Take Back America.

The GOP took to the steps of Capitol Hill on wednesday to announce their alternative to Obama's budget, and this time, the GOP budget included some numbers (sorta), or at least things that can be extrapolated into numbers. Yippee ! The GOP is starting to catch on to what comprises a budget. Here's GOP Representative Paul Ryan, first describing Obama's budget:

Under the president's plan, spending will top $4 trillion this year alone, and consume 28.5% of our nation's economy. His plan would mean a $1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation's entitlement programs — including a "down payment" toward government-controlled health care and education; a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs; a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade. Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation's debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation's GDP by the last year of the budget.

I'm with you, Rep. Ryan, though that last sentence about the debt reaching 82% of GDP….that's only theoretical, and won't happen until 2080. It's absurd to be laying that at Obama's feet. Obama would be 118 years old then. Something tells me the successive 10-20 presidential administrations might have more to say about what happens by 2080 (but by 2150, we're REALLY in trouble). Obama is, however, heading us in the wrong fiscal direction faster than any previous administration. No doubts there.

Here's Ryan's general description of the GOP alternative:

Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations — and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see chart).

While our approach ensures a sturdy safety net for those facing chronic or temporary difficulties, it understands that the reliability of this protection and the other functions of government depend on a vibrant, free and growing private sector to generate the resources necessary for it.

Sounds better than what the Obama Spendocrats are offering. What are the details ?

- Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The GOP's aim is to half Obama's ginormous freaking deficits by 2019 ? Um, doesn't that still leave us with deficits ? We need surpluses to pay down the debt, not endless deficits and growing debt. What I just heard the GOP say is "we're bad, just not as bad as the other guys." Not very inspiring. I wonder if the Libertarians have come up with an alternative budget.

The GOP continues:

Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement.

So, the GOP says "let's increase defense related spending and freeze everything else". No sale there either. We need to cut federal spending, not freeze it, and defense is as up for legitimate cuts as every other area. I mean, do we really need those 450 military bases in 150 countries all over the world ? Do we really need troops in Germany and Japan 65 years after WWII ? I don't think so.

Next, energy:

Energy. Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.

I like this. Far preferable to Obama's onerous and regressive tax strategies. Score one for the GOP.

Medicare entitlements:

…We preserve the existing Medicare program for all those 55 or older; and then, to make the program sustainable and dependable, those 54 and younger will enter a Medicare program reformed to work like the health plan members of Congress and federal employees now enjoy. Starting in 2021, seniors would receive a premium support payment equal to 100% of the Medicare benefit on average. This would be income related, so low-income seniors receive extra support, and high-income seniors receive support relative to their incomes — along the same lines as the president's Medicare Part D proposal.

This is an interesting idea, but what's with the "starting in 2021" stuff ? I hate it when politicians propose things they won't be around to implement.

On taxation:

Tax Reform. Our budget does not raise taxes, and makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. In fact, we cut taxes and reform the tax system. Individuals can choose to pay their federal taxes under the existing code, or move to a highly simplified system that fits on a post card, with few deductions and two rates. Specifically, couples pay 10% on their first $100,000 in income (singles on $50,000) and 25% above that. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, and the death tax is repealed. The proposal includes generous standard and personal exemptions such that a family of four earning $39,000 would not pay tax on that amount. In an effort to revive peoples' lost savings, and to create an incentive for risk-taking and investment, the budget repeals the capital gains tax through 2010 for all taxpayers.

On the business side, the budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate — currently the second highest in the industrialized world — to 25%.

In theory, great. In reality, lousy. The GOP said it would freeze spending, but it is cutting taxes, and even cutting taxes for the wealthy. I'm for all that in principle, but the country is in MASSIVE DEBT right now. We have to pay it down. And with all due respect to the GOP, y'all didn't hold spending down very well for the first 6 years of the Bush administration, did you ? Granted, Obama and the Dems are far worse, but bad isn't a great alternative to terrible.

But I'm all for the business and capital gains tax cuts to help us out of the recession.
—
Overall – not good enough, GOP. You have to do better.

Has anyone else noticed that Barack Obama seems to be in non-stop campaign mode ? He's on television almost daily trying to sell his ideas to the public. Here are some possible reasons why.

The following Rasmussen poll chart shows how President Obama's approval numbers have steadily weakened since his inauguration. Currently, 37% strongly approve of Obama's job performance, and 30% strongly disapprove.

Overall, 58% of those polled at least somewhat approved of Obama. That number has also dropped since inauguration day.

In addition, Rassmussen's generic congressional ballot polling found that on 3/15/09, Republicans outpolled Democrats, 41% to 39%. That's the first time that has occurred in recent years. In 2007, voters preferred Democrats by 10-12 points. In 2008, Democrats were favored by 5-8 points. Now that gap has narrowed considerably. Since the beginning of february, Democrats have usually led by only 2-3 points, with the Republicans winning two weeks ago.

Other polling numbers of interest:

- Only 18% think Congress is doing an excellent/good job (what are those 18% thinking ?)
- 59% think the USA is on the wrong track
- 58% think politics has become more partisan
- Only 35% think Obama is governing on a bipartisan basis
- Only 24% think Republicans are acting in a bipartisan fashion
- Only 20% think Democrats are acting in a bipartisan fashion

Now let's look at issues from a populist viewpoint:

- Only 11% think the government is doing enough to secure the border
- 51% think tax increases hurt the economy
- 63% think tax cuts help the economy
- 52% think they pay more than their fair share of taxes
- 51% think USA is winning the war on terror
- 51% think USA is safer than before 9/11
- 58% want the troops home within a year
- 79% think the economy is in a recession (what do the other 21% think ?)
- 51% think Obama is excellent/good on energy (I bet they won't when their energy bills go through the roof)
- 48% think Obama is excellent/good on foreign policy
- 48% think Obama is excellent/good on the economy (who are THESE people ??? We can't have THAT many socialists in this country)
- 63% think Obama will have the troops home by the end of his first term (in spite of the fact that Obama himself has said he wouldn't have the troops home. He's ramping up Afganistan and said he'd leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Okay, now I'm starting to get the 48% who think Obama is good on the economy. They aren't paying attention. They're playing Nintendo instead).
- 68% think Obama will cause government spending to go up (again, what in the heck are the other 32% thinking ? They're playing Grand Theft Auto III. This poll number should be 100%).

These issues polls mostly confirm that we have a center-right country from an ideological standpoint. And an uninformed country regarding Obama's policies. In spite of the fact that the country is center-right, the foulups of the Bush administration handed the reins of power back over to the Democrats. And in spite of that, the way the Dems and Obama are going, and the way the polls are trending, if I was a Republican, I'd be feeling pretty good about my chances of increasing my party's power in 2010 and 2012 (especially if The One adds another $4-5 trillion to the debt in one term). The downside for Republicans is, the economy will probably recover before 2012, and Obama will get credit, even if he doesn't deserve any, and even if he is making things far worse over the long run.

The following chart illustrates what percentage of CO2 greenhouse gases are attributable to man:

The rest of the greenhouse gases consist mostly of water vapor (95%). Read the Global Warming Primer for more information. Also keep in mind that the proposed cap-and-trade system of taxation being proposed by Obama, which would cost trillions of dollars, aims to decrease that tiny dot of man-made CO2 in the above chart by only 15%. Color me skeptical as to the positive effects of cap-and-trade.
—-
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has introduced the Save The Liberal Media Act, er, I mean, the Newspaper Revitalization Act, which he says could help save the ailing newspaper industry. Cardin's press release stated, "The Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, if they choose, under 501(c)(3) status for educational purposes, similar to public broadcasting. Under this arrangement, newspapers would not be allowed to make political endorsements, but they would be allowed to freely report on all issues, including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

As most of you already know, the vast majority of newspapers and other mainstream media outlets lean left. The Dems don't want to lose their propaganda advantage.
—-
From the Here's Why The GOP Is Braindead files: Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) may soon have both houses of Congress taking up an issue of vital national security – the NCAA football championship system (BCS). The legislation would prohibit the NCAA from naming a national champion unless it follows whatever playoff system Congress dictates. Unbelievable. I don't know where Congress gets the idea it has the authority to regulate this, and I have even less idea why Congress thinks this deserves their attention. Maybe Hatch is mad that undefeated Utah didn't make the championship game last year. Whatever. This is just one more small sign that Capitol Hill is WAY out of control.
—-
The Big Lie: "…in this budget, we have to make the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term, even under the most pessimistic estimates. At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest." –President Barack Obama, who is moving America into the most massive crushing debt in history, faster than any presidential administration in history.

And, of course, when Obama says "invest," he means tax, borrow, and spend.
—-
Joke of the day: On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aide visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's sermon, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint. The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look. I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."
The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon."
As Pelosi's aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday sermon and seated herself prominently at the edge of the main aisle. And, during the sermon, as promised, the Cardinal pointed out that House Speaker Pelosi was present. Then the Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation — "While Speaker Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, she is not my favorite person. Some of her views are contrary to those of the church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other views. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for money and is using it to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington, and in California. She simply is not to be trusted."
The Cardinal completed his view of Pelosi with, "But, when compared to Senators Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint."

Most times I look at the GOP and Democrats as a case of Dumb and Dumber. The argument over the federal budget is a perfect example.

On the Democrat side, President Obama has unveiled a budget that leads the country on a path to bankruptcy, and then has the audacity (of hope?) to say his critics (Republicans) don't have any alternative to Obama's budget from hell. Now, I don't know why the Republicans would even bother to formulate a budget of their own, since it would be a purely academic exercise. A Republican budget would have no chance of being implemented. As the minority party, it's enough to try to stop whatever part of the majority's agenda you find objectionable, in addition to pushing for what little you can get implemented yourself. With Obama leading the country to hell in a handbasket, being the 'party of no' is actually a good thing.

But I guess the GOP wanted to show that Obama a thing or two. They wanted to show him that they DID have an alternative budget, so they gathered the press corp together to unveil the REPUBLICAN BUDGET ALTERNATIVE.

I knew the GOP was in trouble from the get-go, when House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said "here's your alternative budget, Mr. President," and starting waving around what appeared to be little more than a pamphlet. Uh-oh.

It was actually a whopping 19 page "budget" called the Republican Road To Recovery. I have a suggestion here for the GOP. When you announce a "budget," it really helps if the "budget" contains, like, budgetary numbers, revenue and spending totals, deficit projections, and stuff like that. That's why they call it a BUDGET. The GOP's release contained NONE of that, therefore it wasn't a budget at all. Instead, it was a list of policy ideas. The Republicans said the budget details will come out next week (so why didn't you wait until next week to announce your "budget," GOP ?? Why didn't you wait until you actually HAD a budget before you announced it's release ?) In the battle between Dumb and Dumber, today the GOP won the DUMBER title.

Most of the Republican Road To Recovery consisted of criticizing Obama's big spending, big taxing ways. There's lots to criticize there, but I have another suggestion for the GOP. While the Democrats solution to every problem is spend more, tax more, and make government bigger (wrong, wrong, and wrong), the GOP has to come up with more ideas than just tax cuts. Not every GOP idea in it's imaginary budget amounted to tax cuts, but a lot of them did. The short version of the GOP's plan could be stated as 'cut taxes, stop the bailouts, reign in spending, and drill for oil.' Those are all worthwhile, but you have to spell it out.

I hope you do better next week, Republicans, because this week was a bust. The GOP's imaginary budget was basically John McCain's campaign platform, and guess what, that LOST. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something better than Obama's budgetary disaster. It shouldn't be that difficult to come up with something better than bankrupting the country, which is what Obama is proposing. Now that the GOP has taken Obama's bait about producing their own budget, they have to put up or shut up.

Here's one final piece of advice for you, GOP. It isn't a real great idea right now, with the country up to it's ears in debt, to be pushing for MORE tax cuts for the wealthy (the GOP wants to cut the top income tax rate from 35% to 25%). The Democrat's pet media will shout 'TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH' from the rooftops and you will be demonized all over again in the Dems ongoing class warfare battle. Just how dumb are you GOP'ers anyway ? It seems you haven't learned a thing. Instead of cutting personal income tax rates, cut taxes for business and investment, you dorks, so businesses can HIRE more people in this country and we can get the economy moving again.