Mike Pence Wins Values Voter Summit Straw Poll

This one kind of surprised me. I know it's probably not indicative of how the majority of conservative voters would vote, but if you'd asked me who I thought might top the list Mike Pence wouldn't have come to mind at all. I like him, have no problems with him being up there, but still a surprise. 

Who would you vote for if the election for president happened this year? Lots of good choices on the list below.

Mike Pence Wins Values Summit Straw Poll

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has won Family Research Council Action's third-ever Values Voter Summit Straw Poll. Gov. Mike Huckabee finished in a close second place.

Only FRC Action members who were present at the event were allowed to vote.

Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins released the following statement in reaction to the 2010 Values Voter Summit Straw Poll: "The results of the presidential straw poll reflect the outcome of recent elections. Those who are truly conservative, fiscally and socially, are enthusiastically supported by voters."

The following are the straw poll results:

Presidential Candidate Name Total Votes Percentage

Mike Pence 170 24%
Mike Huckabee 159 22%
Mitt Romney 93 13%
Newt Gingrich 72 10%
Sarah Palin 51 7%
Rick Santorum 39 5%
Jim DeMint 38 5%
Bobby Jindal 15 2%
Mitch Daniels 13 2%
Chris Christie 11 2%
John Thune 11 2%
Bob McDonnell 10 1%
Marco Rubio 10 1%
Paul Ryan 7 1%
Haley Barbour 6 1%
Ron Paul 5 1%
Jan Brewer 1 0%
Undecided 12 2%

Vice Presidential Candidate Responses:

Mike Pence 119 16%
Sarah Palin 112 15%
Rick Santorum 75 10%
Paul Ryan 51 7%
Jim DeMint 45 6%
Mike Huckabee 43 6%
Marco Rubio 43 6%
Bobby Jindal 36 5%
Bob McDonnell 31 4%
Chris Christie 25 3%
Mitt Romney 25 3%
Newt Gingrich 24 3%
Jan Brewer 20 3%
John Thune 15 2%
Mitch Daniels 10 1%
Haley Barbour 6 1%
Ron Paul 5 1%
Undecided 38 5%

Members of FRC Action are only allowed to vote once. For more information on the Values Voter Summit, log onto www.valuesvotersummit.org.

Kids, Obama, more indoctrination...

Can you just imagine what would have happened if anyone had done something like the previous video in last post about George Bush??? Here's some more fun stuff being taught to our kids...





Lyrics:
Yo Mir Kenen.
Yo mir kenen, yo mir kenen
President Obama
Mazel tov fun kinder, bubehs ,zeydehs, tatehs, mamehs

Yes we can, yes we can
President Obama
Good luck from children, grandparents, papas and mamas.

Yo mir kenen, yo mir kenen,
Zogt undzer president ,
Yung un alt ,di gantze velt, patchen mit di hent.

Yes we can, yes we can
Our president does say.
Young and old, the whole wide world, greets you on this day.

This one is kinda catchy:



I have more... going to put them in a separate post so it doesn't load too slow...

Obama and Saving Newspapers

Next on the bailout agenda is the bailout of newspapers. I was framing a blog in my mind about the issue when I came across the article below by Michael Reagan. He pretty much touches on most of the points I was going to include, but you know I still have to expound, pontificate, blather a little bit...

The world of the news is changing. We're going through a shift that is rather like the industrial revolution and every other change that has occurred due to new innovations. People are in the process, especially the "next generation", of moving from the printed page to the Internet. (To my green friends: isn't that better than killing trees and wasting energy for printing, etc., etc.). I think we'll always love the printed word on paper, but maybe that's just 'cause I love to curl up on the couch with a good book. I'll have to admit that I get all, very bit, of my news from the Internet though.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of revenue making abilities on the Internet... yet... (although we're doing pretty well most days at the Fayette Front Page, Georgia Front Page and Arts Across Georgia ;-). It'll come. At least it'll happen as long as government keeps their mitts out and allows the free market to do its thing. (side note: check out the "net neutrality" issue)

One surprising fact, or not so surprising if you lean conservative, that Mr. Obama always seems to overlook is that the more conservative leaning news print vehicles are actually thriving. Ditto on television. The failing big-guy newspapers aren't paying much attention. They'd rather go down with their bias than survive I suppose... well, guess they're not going down as long as the President is willing to bail them out, huh?

One big issue for me, aside from throwing our tax dollars at yet another business that can't hold its own, is the so-called "freedom of press" issue. We've seen the President and pals meddle overmuch in the auto industry, the banking industry and they're worming their way into other businesses and industries as I type. What happens to the writing at a newspaper when their very existence depends on government hand-outs? Ya think they're going to print the "party line" or the facts if they hurt their chances of hanging onto those federal dollars?

I don't like where we're heading in this country. I don't like big government, it's become "The Blob" from that old Steve McQueen movie. It's growing and it's going to take a lot to freeze it, then shrink it. Probably not the best analogy as I don't really think it needs to be killed, just reformed. Hmmm, maybe I'll write a script for a Blob movie remake where the hero converts it, saves it, fixes it and it does good works... Yep, I went from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous, a bad analogy is just a bad analogy and their ain't no fixin' it. Hey, if you saw the remake of "The Blob" my idea for a new story-line has to be a heck of a lot better .

Newspaper Profitability -- Is it Critical to our Democracy?
by Michael Reagan
Today, as you read this column in your favorite newspaper, I hope that you can appreciate the irony of where I am choosing to voice my opposition to President Obama's expressed "happiness" to look at proposals to provide federal funding to help "rescue" the struggling print segment of the Fourth Estate. Just what we need.more of our tax dollars going to pick and choose segments of the public sector that the administration deems worthy of assistance.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/09/23/newspaper_profitability_--_is_it_critical_to_our_democracy

How Obama Plans to Cover Illegal Alien's in Health Care Bill...

He'll just make 'em all legal. Here ya go, in his own words Wednesday night at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (and then another video at previous talk follows):

Byron York - When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Continue reading: Byron York - When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

Me: Just thought it was interesting reading...

Mayo Clinic calls House plan bad medicine

Obama loses support on reform

A world-renowned clinic that President Obama held up as an example of good medicine said Monday that the American people would be "losers" under the House's health care proposal, joining the growing chorus of critics the Obama administration is trying to fend off as the debate intensifies from Capitol Hill to Main Street.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/21/mayo-clinic-calls-house-plan-bad-medicine/?feat=home_cube_position1

Did your paycheck go up?

According to President Obama 95% of the working population should have received the benefits of the tax cut to help stimulate the economy.

I've talked to a number of people, including some of my family members, about the increased pay / tax adjustment that should have shown up in their paycheck effective April 1st. So far the dollar amounts are ranging from 96 cents to a couple of dollars.

Just curious, did your paycheck go up? If it did, how much? I've set up a poll on the sidebar, hope you'll click your choice. Let me know if I overlooked anything when I set it up.

Summers Received Big Fees from TARP Recipients

President Obama's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, "received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees last year from firms that have direct financial interests before the government or are intimately involved in the White House's bank relief programs," according to Huffington Post... More

Note: I find it interesting that the Huffington Post, liberal to the gills, is also going after some of Obama's cabinet picks. Now that does tell you something about the quality of his choices, doesn't it? I wonder if Geithner is regretting taking the job, or is he has that arrogant gene that allows his to look down in disdain at those who're going after him? If I were in his shoes, I would have taken myself out of the running once the hoopla started about the taxes... 'course if he was the kind of person who'd do that, chances are he would have paid his taxes, too.

Stimulating Stimulus

My younger sister called me the other day all excited about the increase she's going to be getting in her check starting in April.

Lynda is getting ready to make a few major changes in her life so she thought she'd change her exemptions and check on how much to expect. Unlike me, she's a planner.

Given the promise from the Obama administration of an average increase of $8 - $13 a week she was a bit concerned about the tax implications. Word is out that tax tables are not being adjusted, so those receiving the stimulus increase may get hit up for taxes at the end of the year and end up owing Uncle Sam.

She is going to realize a whopping increase of 97 cents a week.

You should have heard her as she gushed about all she'd be able to do with her increase to help the economy. She figured that if she saved up for a couple of months she could take a run over to the local dollar store and spend her windfall in one place.

I kind of hated to put a damper on her enthusiasm, but I had to remind her that it took gas to drive to the dollar store.

Now she's going to have to put off doing her bit to help stimulate the economy another month just to accrue the money to cover the cost of gas. Sooner or later all that money the government is so generously "giving" her will add up to enough to help get us out of this hole. You know the old saying, "a dollar here, a dollar there and sooner or later you have real money".

Don't you just get a big kick out of the government taking money from us in the form of taxes, then turning around and giving a pittance back to us? They make it sound like they're doing us a favor by allowing us to keep some of the money they normally take out of our paychecks.

I have my own company. I won't see a penny of the stimulus. Doesn't sound like I'll be missing much.

A $50 lesson

Rec'd via email:

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed and were so proud.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

(Thought you might enjoy a bit of levity encased truth this Monday morning... yowzer, watching the stocks tumbling again!)

Heritage: Regulations of Mass Job Destruction

Do you eat, sleep or pray? If so, then the Obama Administration wants to monitor, regulate and tax you. According to federal records only published yesterday, this past Friday the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a proposed rule to the White House that finds carbon dioxide to be a danger to public health pursuant to the Clean Air Act. One might wonder how a substance so natural that it is passing through your lungs and out your nose right now could be declared a threat to “the public’s health and welfare,” but such is the logic of the modern environmental left.

As the Washington Post notes today, the 1970 Clean Air Act “was never intended to deal with greenhouse gases and is not suited to that task” but the enviro left has been undeterred.

According to internal documents presented by the EPA to the White House earlier this month, the EPA believes that global warming caused by elevated levels of carbon dioxide emissions could cause “severe heat waves…with likely increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young and frail.” The agency also claims carbon emissions could result in more severe storms and more suffering related to “floods, storms, droughts and fires.”

If the evidence the EPA is using to support these claims today is anything like the claims made in the EPA’s last blueprint for carbon regulation, then the scientific basis for the EPA’s findings are extremely weak.

CATO scholar Patrick Michaels has detailed the shortcomings of the EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) concluding: “The TSD suffers from a failure to incorporate the best available science, misapplied logic, and the inability to recognize that observed trends in measures of human health and welfare run counter to those anticipated - despite on-going climate changes. As such, the TSD does not serve as an adequate basis for which to base an endangerment finding.”

But let’s set aside the non-threat carbon emissions pose to public health. The economic damage caused by EPA carbon regulations would be immense. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is already trying to minimize the economic danger, telling the New York Times: “We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule.”

But, as we have pointed out many times, this statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Clean Air Act works and how an endangerment finding would trigger broad, required regulatory action.

New York Law School professor David Schoenbrod tells the Washington Post: “This would be a regulatory maze far exceeding anything we’ve seen before.”

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, regulating carbon through the Clean Air Act would affect at least one million mid-sized commercial buildings, including: 1/5 of all food service businesses, 1/3 of all health care businesses, 1/2 of the entire lodging industry, and even 10% of all buildings used for worship. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has estimated that EPA carbon regulations will cause annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years and a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029.

In actuality, the Obama Administration has no desire to regulate carbon through the EPA. They are only using the EPA as the threatening tool to force cap and trade legislation through Congress; legislation that President Obama even admitted would cause American's power bills to "skyrocket", would do nothing to stop global warming, and, if part of an international treaty, would send American tax dollars to foreign millionaires.

Sign up to read this and more at www.heritage.org
Regulations of Mass Job Destruction

Atlas Shrugs: House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

The brownshirt corp. Do people know this is even happening? Call your Senators, seriously.

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill Infowars (hat tip Joan)

The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

http://ow.ly/18DM If that link doesn't work, try this one: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/house-passes-mandatory-national-service-bill.html

Newt Gingrich: Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

"Outrage" is the word on everyone's lips to describe the fat bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds to the failed executives at AIG - and it is an outrage.

It's an outrage that the American people are being asked to pay for the bad behavior of people who should have known better, be they reckless traders on Wall Street or reckless borrowers on Main Street.

But the cure for our outrage is not merely, as President Obama is demanding, that AIG be prevented from paying its executives. The $165 million in planned bonuses - as manifestly undeserved as it is - is chicken feed compared to the $170 billion in taxpayer funds AIG has received so far.

Nor is it acceptable to ask Americans to keep throwing their tax dollars at failed companies and their leaders.

The answer is an old fashioned one: AIG should choose between receivership or bankruptcy. It should not be allowed to choose more bailouts from the taxpayer.

Restore the Rule of Law: Allow Failing Corporations to go Bankrupt

Under U.S. law, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a company to reorganize. Chapter 7 allows a company to dissolve itself.

The choices for AIG, as both an insurance and non-insurance company, are more complicated, but ultimately boil down to the same options. And for other companies either receiving or looking to receive a bailout from the taxpayers, the option should instead be bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy would send a needed message to U.S. investors: Don't assume the government will bail you out when you do something stupid.

And most importantly, bankruptcy would replace the rule of politicians over U.S. financial institutions with the rule of law.

Geithner Didn't Inherit the Policy of Throwing Billions at Failing Companies - He Helped Create It

Because when it comes to Washington's handling of the financial crisis, so far we've had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law. Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."

The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.

Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:"In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".

The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.

Why Not Bankruptcy for AIG? Because Wall Street Wouldn't Have Done As Well

From the outset, Geithner was central to the developing policy of having the taxpayers bail out ailing financial institutions like AIG rather then allow them to go bankrupt. And for months now, we've been told that these bailouts were necessary to avoid a wider, cataclysmic, financial meltdown.

But now it's clear that other, less noble, considerations were at play.

As the Wall Street Journal editorialized yesterday, the real outrage over the AIG bailout isn't executive bonuses, it's that billions in taxpayer funds intended for AIG have been passed through to benefit foreign banks and Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs.

And as former AIG CEO Hank Greenburg testified last October, these financial institutions wouldn't have faired as well if AIG had filed for bankruptcy protection rather than do what it did, which was to negotiate a bailout with Timothy Geithner's New York Federal Reserve. Here's how Greenburg put it:"Although AIG stockholders could have fared better if the company had filed for bankruptcy protection, other stakeholders - like AIG's Wall Street counterparties in swaps and other transactions - would have fared worse."

For the Cost of Bailing Out AIG, Every American Household Could Have Free Electricity For a Year

So now everyone is outraged, and rightly so. But the lavish executive bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds are just the beginning of the story.

So far, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $170 billion to AIG - that's an astounding $1,224 per taxpayer.

What else could we have done with all this money?

$170 billion would pay for more than doubling the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers.
$170 billion would pay for a four-year education at a public university for more then two million Americans.
$170 billion would cover the electricity bill of every household in America for an entire year.

When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure

What Washington should learn from all this outrage is to return to the common sense that should have guided it all along: When you reward failure, all you get it more failure.

A company that needs a $170 billion taxpayer bailout is a failed company. The executives that led that company are failed executives. But instead of having to face the consequences of their failure responsibly through bankruptcy or receivership, AIG and its Wall Street "counterparties" are being rewarded for their recklessness - with our money.

Thanks to the Bush-Obama-Geithner policy of bailing out failing companies, we now have the worst of all possible scenarios: A taxpayer subsidized, government supervised private company; an unsustainable public/private hybrid that is too public to make its own decisions and too private to be responsible to the taxpayers that are keeping it alive.

Outrages like the fat cat bonuses currently dominating the headlines will only continue as long as the rule of politicians supplants the rule of law on Wall Street.Congress should rethink this entire process. The dangers of a domino-like financial meltdown are real. But so, too, is the danger that the outrage of the American people will reach the point that we no longer trust the dire warnings - or the righteous indignation - coming from Washington.

(Reprinted with permission)

This thing with Great Britain is really bothering me

I spent a number of years as a child in Great Britain. I started school there. I had a British accent that unfortunately I tried to get rid of so I'd "fit" when I came back to the States. My brother lived there as an adult for 7 or 8 years and ultimately married a Brit. Our family has friends over there that we keep up with.

I feel connected.

I think even without those ties I'd feel connected. They have been our ally and staunch supporter through thick and thin over the years.

Now, for whatever reason, Mr. Obama and his staff are "disrespecting" this great ally.

It makes no sense. None.

There is not a strategic benefit that I can see to thumbing our noses at the Brits.

I don't believe that the Obama staff was taken off-guard by the visit. They didn't ditch everyone who understood protocol when the new group took over... did they? That's not typical if they did and it's definitely not a good idea.

It's just common sense to be nice to anyone who comes to visit, especially someone who actually LIKES us.

Yesterday I heard Sir somebody-or-other (didn't catch his name unfortunately) in the British Treasury saying on the tube that he can't even get someone in our Treasury Department to answer his calls. They're planning for a big event at the next G8 Summit and there is a lot of coordination going on. We're not returning the guy's calls. He said this has NEVER happened before and it's not happening with any of the other G8 counterparts.

Incompetence? Deliberate disrespect? Attitude? Misguided snobbery?

What is the long-term goal with our Presidential treatment of Great Britain?

I can just picture the convesation the day Prime Minister Gordon Brown was due:
"Oh gee, we're supposed to give them a gift, aren't we?"
"Hey, anyone have anything they can loan us?"
"Uh, well, I was going to donate this bunch of DVD's to the Shelter down the street, will they work? They haven't been opened."
"Great, now doesn't he have kids? What do little girls like? Anyone?"
"Shoot, who cares, grab a couple of helicopters from the White House gift shop, all kids like things like that, don't they? Charge it to Bill's account over there."

Shameful. I'm embarrassed for our country.

Obama's Bad Science Bailout

Yesterday's Executive Order may not have surprised conservatives, but it certainly shocked the Left. Although most of the country expected President Obama to make good on his promise to reverse the federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, the final order turned out to be far more extreme than ESC's biggest proponents had hoped. Most believed the President would maintain some semblance of restraint and allow experimentation only on those embryos discarded by fertility clinics. Unfortunately, no such limits exist. The President not only cracked ajar the door to ethically-challenged research, he flung it wide open--leaving the very scientists who demanded this money potentially in charge of its limitations.

Under the President's directive, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), unless Congress intervenes, will determine what, if any, boundaries there might be on how we obtain these embryos. With no clear policy from the White House, you and I could be footing the bill for research that clones embryos just to scavenge their parts.

If that's the case, our policy will condone the creation of life for the sole purpose of experimenting on it. Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College bioethicist, said, "There are lot of people on the left and the right sides of our political spectrum who are opposed to that--to create a life to destroy it."

President Obama justified the idea yesterday, saying, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to... work to ease human suffering." But killing to cure doesn't make murder more acceptable, just like giving stolen goods to the church doesn't justify larceny. As Yuval Levin, the former executive director of President Bush's Council on Bioethics writes in today's Washington Post, "In science policy, science informs--but politics governs, and rightly so."

By shielding this research from any public or congressional scrutiny, the President may as well tear up his social contract with the American people. When we're talking about human life and taxpayer dollars, voters have a right to know who's going to monitor the scientists. The appetite for this research may be insatiable, but as Levin says, "[Science]... is no substitute for wisdom, prudence, or democracy."

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) disagrees. A longtime proponent of unethical research, DeGette urged Congress to make Obama's executive order permanent. "Congress must quickly pass complementary legislation so that no future anti-science administration will be able to hinder progress... Congress absolutely must not delay in codifying the directive to prevent science from being subject to the whim of politics." Here is the first of what we expect to be many fierce attacks on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment--the only policy remaining that protects taxpayers from directly funding the destruction of human embryos. Please help us keep this important barrier in place. Contact your Congressmen and urge them to support the Dickey-Wicker and the bipartisan Patients' First Act. Unlike President Obama's order, it promotes science that is not only ethical but effective.

Additional Resources FRC: Stem Cell Success Stories

Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Heritage: Americans Did Not Vote for This Plan

President Barack Obama is losing the debate over his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan.

According to Rasmussen Reports, only 37% of the American people favor his legislation. And according to Gallup nearly 80% of Americans believe the current plan will not stimulate the economy.

Faced with criticism of his plan, Obama has tersely responded to conservative lawmakers: "I won." Well you know what? So did every other person in Congress. They all won their elections and their constituents deserve to have their views represented too.

Defending his plan with an op-ed in the Washington Post today Obama repeats his "I won" mantra: "I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change." But did Americans vote for THIS bill? A bill that is larger than the Iraq and Afghanistan combined. A bill that it is larger than the entire GDP of India. A bill that, once interest payments are included, will put Americans a full trillion dollars deeper in debt.

Remember, this is a President who, while still a candidate, promised a "net spending cut." And that promise was made October 7th, well after Lehman Brothers collapsed and it was already evident how deep an economic crisis we were in. Obama prided himself on the conservative and independent voters he won this November. They deserve to have Obama's fiscal responsibility promises kept.

Continuing to defend his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan Obama writes: "This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education." But as the Washington Post editorializes: "This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this "long-term" spending either won't stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both."

Yesterday Obama was claiming that the controversial parts of his plan "amount to less than 1% of the overall package." But as he admits today, and as the Washington Post points out, the controversial spending makes up the core of his plan.

Obama concludes his op-ed writing: "These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. ... they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide." Obama is asking Congress to approve the largest deficit spending plan in the history of the known universe and he wants it done in ten days. There may well be some worthy government project buried in this bill, but as the Washington Post points out, they "do not belong in legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a "jolt" ... All other policy priorities should pass through the normal budget process, which involves hearings, debate and -- crucially -- competition with other programs."

Through those hearings and normal budget processes, the other elected leaders of our democracy can better assess which spending is needed and which spending is not. Barack Obama did not campaign on this spending plan. Therefore, it is simply not credible to believe that Americans voters meant to give him a blank check this past November, and current polls reflect exactly that.

(Love the Heritage Foundation... go sign up for their Morning Bell! www.heritage.org)

Time for the media to flex its' muscles?

Yesterday I watched Mr. Obama and Timothy Geithner give an overview of the restrictions they were placing on companies taking TARP funds. (Just so you know, in the fine print of those restrictions is a bit that says something along the lines of "we can exempt anyone if we choose"). It struck me as odd that immediately after speaking, Obama and Geithner turned on their heels and walked away without answering any media questions. I understand that sometimes they don't and usually the media is told beforehand. However, the thought flitted through my mind that Obama had pledged open access, change and all that stuff. It seemed that he was shutting out the media.

More and more stories are coming out about how Mr. Obama is using the media and / or going around the media. I predict that if he keeps it up, there is going to be a media backlash. In fact, all the news that's creeping out and then blossoming hugely (cabinet pick problems, stories on his perks in office, etc.) may be a sign of the media flexing its muscles.

Here are a couple of stories that I found interesting this morning:

(I only include this story because of the first paragraph... if you read the story, it is written by someone who is firmly in Obama's camp, best case of outright, blatant bias I've seen in a few days.)
Obama to enlist local GOP in stimulus fight
The irony of President Barack Obama’s Blue Tuesday is that the wall-to-wall television interviews he granted were designed not to apologize for Tom Daschle’s fall from grace but to fight back against the Republicans’ success in tarnishing his stimulus package.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6247503.html

White House Cheat Sheet: Bypassing the Media Filter
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his team learned a very important lesson that they are seeking to put into practice in the White House: the power of the media is overrated.
Time and again during the campaign, Obama used his burgeoning grassroots army -- now more than 13 million email addresses strong -- to push out the message that he wanted to dominate the day rather than the message the media was focused on.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/02/white_house_cheat_sheet_around.html?hpid=topnews

Obama poised to be first 'wired' president
(CNN) -- As the first president-elect with a Facebook page and a YouTube channel, Barack Obama is poised to use the Internet to communicate directly with Americans in a way unknown to previous presidents. Judging by Obama's savvy use of social-networking sites during his campaign and the interactive nature of his transition team's Web site, Americans can expect a president who bypasses the traditional media's filters while reaching out to citizens for input, observers say.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/15/obama.internet.president/index.html

On one level, I like the idea of our elected officials going straight to the public, bypassing all the hype and bias of the media. However, if all we get is one side, then that's not a good thing either. What elected official is going to send out an email saying "here's how this will destroy life as you know it" or any negative points of view on their proposals (unless it's to rebut negatives)? We need opposing views.

There's another scary side to this one, too. There are a lot of people concerned about the direction this administration is heading in regards to free speech. The "Fairness Doctrine", which targets talk radio, will ostensibly shut down one large opposition view media. Does anyone really think it will stop with talk radio?

The media needs to flex fast or it's possible they won't be able to work their muscles at some point.

Latest Porkulus List in S.1 from Heritage (via #TCOT)

* $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient

* $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program

* $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship)

* $448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters

* $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters

* $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees

* $400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STD's

* $1.4 billion for a rural waste disposal programs

* $125 million for the Washington, D.C. sewer system

* $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities

* $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion

* $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges

* $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI

* $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction

* $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River

* $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas

* $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings

* $500 million for state and local fire stations

* $650 million for wildland fire management on Forest Service lands

* $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities

* $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs

* $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service

* $412 million for CDC buildings and property

* $500 million for building and repairing NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD

* $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service

* $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the VA "National Cemetery Administration"

* $60 million for Arlington National Cemetery

* $850 million for Amtrak

* $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint

* $75M to construct a new "security training" facility for State

Dept Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

* $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems

* $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

* $275 million for "watershed and flood prevention operations"

* Unspecified assistance for "nonambulatory cattle"

Global Warming? Climate Change?

I'm sitting in my office with my toes frozenated... yeah, I made that word up. I have on 2 shirts and almost need gloves, mainly 'cause my office is a converted sunroom and I'd have to crank up the heat to ridiculous in the rest of the house to keep this area reasonable. However, I'm doing my part to keep the thermostat low (unlike our new President who likes hot-house temps in the White House).

I've heard all the rationalization as to why it's so darned cold despite the "fact" (cough, cough) that the globe is warming. I know it's now politically correct to call it "climate change". Yeah, well, the climate changes. Just like the chicken-little cause of the moment changes with the wind.

Why am I talking about this one in politics? Because it is affecting politics in a huge way. Mr. Obama is in the process of changing the way our country works simply because he's bought into "climate change". Or maybe he's just using that as an excuse to attain another goal. That one is a huge subject and I'll let you ponder on where we're heading and why...

I'm all for conservation and taking care of our planet. I was recycling long before it was popular, always took out a bag full of extra garbage when I went on hikes or camped, and so on and so forth. I'm a tree-hugging vegetarian Republican.

However, I have just never been able to get on board with global warming. If the scientists and those in the know can't agree that it exists, how in the world can anyone say with any certainty that it's happening? When you hear the scientific data used to prove there is global warming debunked, when logical holes are poked in the data, how can one believe in it? They can't even predict tomorrow's weather with certainty, how can they predict the demise of our planet?

Here's an interesting link for those with an open mind willing to look at both sides (it's the "other" side, scientists who don't believe in global warming): http://petitionproject.org:80/