The Democrats are feeling a victory of sorts having muscled through a $787 billion stimulus bill late Friday night. Three Republicans in the Senate voted for it and not one vote came from a Republican in the house. Besides the hyper-partisanship on display, the Democrats and, especially President Barack Obama, have broke promises on transparency and have conducted themselves with same kind of finesse as a numerically superior prison gang. 

On passing the bill the Democrats published the documents in .pdf files format so that it will make it much harder for the public to do searches using key words. In other words, it would take hours to find certain key interests in the bill because you would have to read through the entire door stop. Furthermore, the format is just the imaging of the text. Why? To prevent the public from doing text searches of the bill. [Go here to see the bill in all its glory]

Here is an interesting part of the bill that shows why Democrats are not too forthcoming with it contents. Connie Hair writing for Human Events provides us with this tidbit. 

We searched the bill randomly — the only way possible — to see what’s being hidden from the public and the members of Congress who will be voting on the bill today. We found one provision that may be a good example of why the Democrats are desperate to stop any exposure of what is in this bill. Like this gem:

SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State. (“Democrats Delay Bill Release to Conceal Details”)

This provision — apparently aimed at conservative governors such as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford who does not want the federal money — would overturn state laws and constitutions, intervening directly in the state’s government to give the legislature the power to overturn a government’s decision.

This provision probably violates the U.S. Constitution, a matter which will be of no concern to Congressional Democrats.

This act — to strong-arm state governments and a governor’s ability to control the state budget — is Chicago-style bipartisanship.

Considering the size, scope, weight, and the overarching monstrosity of the 9-inch thick bill that Congress could do a little better job in preparing it and releasing it especially since the country is about to start spending like never before. The bill was rushed to the floor before members had a chance to read it and it was passed quickly before the details could be released. But, as pointed out before, that little nuisance  has been remedied by the Democrats. 

So much for Democratic promises of a new era of transparency. Only this Tuesday the House unanimously approved a resolution promising 48-hour public notice before holding a roll call. Even better, the bill could have been posted on the Internet, as candidate Barack Obama suggested during the campaign. Let voters see what they’re getting for all this money. Not a chance.

This high-handed endgame follows the pattern of this bill from the start, with Republicans all but ignored until Democrats let three GOP Senators nibble around the edges to prevent a filibuster. With their huge majorities, Mr. Obey and Democrats got their epic victory. But far from a new, transparent way of governing, this bill represents the kind of old-fashioned partisan politics that Tom DeLay would have admired. (Wall Street Journal)

Of course, we know that the Democrats and President Obama vowed to offer unprecedented transparency in  passing legislation. It was part of the whole campaign on changing how Washington was ran. That promise has obviously been broken by a near criminal move on the parts of Democrats. The only change that has taken place has been one for the worse. Now we are seeing increased partisanship and a daringly mischievous and dangerously emboldened House Democrats. As GOP Leader, Congressman Boehner points out on the House Floor (Youtube video)

                                                      (photo from Wall Street Journal)

So this is the new change ushered in by Obama’s mandate? Repeated reminders that “he won” followed by a hyper-partisan, lavish, Democratic retreat in Virginia — during a time when our economy is supposedly on the verge of a catastrophe mind you. The speech itself  amounted to nothing more than a sarcastic-laced, glib and polarizing pep-rally by President Obama. He used his slot to reinforce what has been the Democrat approach all along and that is, of course, spending — any kind of spending. Obama obviously stopped short of any details about the items in the bill and how exactly the government proposed to come up with the money. He should really take Bill Clinton’s advise in the future. 

It became apparent that once the Republicans were not on board and the American public saw a one sided bill so crammed with goodies that few seriously mistook for anything less than an orgy of mass government spending, he resorted to the very thing he railed against for nearly two years on the campaign trail. He trumped up fear. He took to the airwaves about it. He addressed Congress about it. And he made sure along with VP Biden that the American people got the bleakest picture imaginable. He used terms like “catastrophe,” “devastation,”  ”grave consequences” and “serious threats” if Congress did not act now in passing the proposed bill. He painted a picture that the Republicans were escalating the dangers by refusing to play ball.

So this is the New New Deal? Well if it is, it is a far cry from “The only thing we have to fear…is fear itself!”

And despite the Presidents repeated calls for bipartisanship and a refreshing hands-on approach, he allowed his House Democrats to write the bill and fill it full of waste. The result was a hallmark of sorts that illustrates wonderfully to the American people exactly what is wrong with our government. Obama could have interjected and allowed for cuts in payroll taxes and corporate taxes. But, he didn’t and he allowed an already despised Congress to hijack the bill and run it through to the Senate. 

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to supportincomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn’t do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They’ve acted because they can’t justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done. (Wall Street Journal: “The Stimulus Tragedy”)

Recessions have historically lasted 16 – 18 months. Depending on the severity, government has acted to spend where there are shortfalls and apply tax relief to consumers and businesses. This isn’t something new or unique to Obama’s presidency. But he is choosing to handle it much differently than anytime before. 

Go here to read the rest.

Skeptics to the Obama/Democrat stimulus package whether they be professional, political or otherwise, have  been considered opposition forces and simply labeled as naysayers by the supporters of the bill. The truth of the matter is that there are many qualified professionals who have studied economics and the American economy for decades who came to different conclusions on the merits of the stimulus package.

The debate has brought forth two principled arguments:  To what extent should the economic stimulus address spending increases vs tax cuts? And, what effects will the stimulus package have on the idea of a limited government?

There have been all sorts of political goodies identified as part of the stimulus package that some have viewed as nothing more than measures for patronage building and political pet projects for the Democrat lawmakers. Therefore, many are rightfully concerned that this is a green light towards a permanent increase in the size and scope of government along with a hefty price tag.

What is more, most believe that the economy will eventually return to some sense of normalcy. Rather it will be because of government assistance or not is not necessarily the issue. The concern, however, is when the downturn is over what will  the federal budget look like? What will the future tax structure and tax revenue be? What will the budget deficit look like compared to the GDP?

These are questions that deserve to be debated, fully answered and should not be simply dismissed as dissent or labled as baseless political humbug by the opposition when reasonably presented. The articles that are linked below highlights the current debate and to which the opposing voices have been generally accepted by the supporters of the stimulus package. (Charles Dharapak/AP Photo)

Go here to read the rest.

A possible breakthrough in the stalled two front culture war is developing. The debate over if gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military began back in President Clinton’s first days in office, and according to President-elects Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Obama is prepared to end the compromise of “don’t ask don’t tell” and spearhead a new offensive for the secularist’s drive into the military when he takes office.

According to a Fox News report, Obama told a gay magazine that: he can “reasonbably” see it being repealed. But that was a far cry from Gibbs’ unequivocal promise that the policy will indeed be ended.

On his transition website he addresses the issue pointedly

“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” reads an entry on the president-elect’s transition website.

The military has long been the target for secularist as the last bastion of a traditional, orderly, and conservative sub-society in America. The military has its own culture and has long been insulated from most social movements by its own laws and authority but has at times taken on reforms and made changes throughout its history. The racial integration of all the armed services and allowing women to serve are but just a few. However, the military operates on a system of standards and a code of conduct that reinforces its traditions and promotes good order and discipline that enables full efficiency in whatever mission is at hand.

Rather if one is patriotic and homosexual does not matter. Individuals with a homosexual lifestyle and openly expresses it do not fit the standards according to the UCMJ. Just as someone who has one leg or an abnormality through no fault of their own and, is also patriotic, does not fit the proper physical standards set by the U.S. military. Therefore, can not serve based on that fact. However, a top down ruling by lawmakers will circumvent centuries old rules and regulations, standards and traditions, for the sake of progressiveness and secularism and force on it their views of society just as it has been forced on America. 

Read the rest, here

Once before, something even better than a cease fire was tried. All the people of Gaza wanted was to be left alone and exist as a sovereign nation everyone was told.  So Israel agreed to the evacuation of  Gaza. The best and brightest minds all concluded that if the Israelites just left Gaza it would marginalize Islamist appeal by giving the Palestinians what they want–a state and a future. That was tried in 2005.  It was hailed as a major concession for the wonderful price of peace.

The Palestinians were supposed to form a collective conclusion that the existence of the Jewish state was formidable and a reality. Soon everyone would negotiate a compromise for a permanent peace. The Palestinians could pick up the pieces and begin to build for themselves a country and elect a government with an idea for a final end for conflict. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

So what did happen after Israel surrendered to popular demand?

Only the sweeping election of Hamas and an increasingly fanatical and militarized Palestine. Then, of course, this was followed by continued rocket attacks and the institutionalization of hate and anti-Jewish/West teachings.

What was learned by any of this? 

Israel realized that Hamas was fundamentally hostile to their existence. It is called reality and it works. These Islamist are not fighting for a state, they are simply fighting for hate. And probably most damning of all was that the evacuation was seen as triumph to Islamist everywhere and glorified their tactics of suicide bombers and killing of innocents. This reinforced Hamas’ position as the Islamic soldiers they portray themselves to be:  Violence and force backed by Islam can conquer all. Moderation is a Western term. Islam only functions in absolutes. Hamas is Islam. 

Read the rest, here

For the first time ever, President-elect Obama has received negative reviews and it is pretty safe to assume this is one major muslim capital crossed off the list for Obama’s planned speech. Iranian protesters showed their outrage at Israel and the U.S. and burnt large posters of Obama in Tehran yesterday. It is a national past time in most muslim countries to burn pictures or effigies of U.S. Presidents. The dozens of protesters welcomed him into that elite status just a week before he is officially inaugurated President of the United States. 

The chants and festivities included:

“Where are the freedom seekers?” read one poster held up by a demonstrator at Tuesday’s protest. It had the word “Gaza” emblazoned on it and an image of a weeping Palestinian.

The demonstrators, waving Palestinian flags, some chanting “Death to Obama,” had gathered outside the Swiss embassy which handles U.S. interests because Tehran and Washington have not had diplomatic ties for nearly three decades.

I wonder if shoe throwing and threats to the President of the United States will all the sudden become taboo to certain citizens of America? Also, does this delay the new era in human history that Obama was to usher in? 

Pardon the punditry, but I for one find this insulting, threatening and the further promotion of a hateful ideology that is Islam. 

Sen. John Cornyn, the new chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, plainly stated that the Republicans are united and will fight any attempt by Reid or any majority party power grab that would sit Franken as the winner without official word from the Canvassing Board decision.

“I can assure you there will be no way that people on our side of the aisle would agree to seat any senator provisionally or otherwise unless there is a valid election certificate and all legal issues with regard to who got the most votes is finally decided,” Cornyn told reporters during a conference call Friday.

Believe that the Democrats have plenty of tricks up their sleeves. 

Pending the counting of hundreds of unopened absentee ballots, Democrat Al Franken holds a 49-vote lead over incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, whose term expires at noon EST Saturday.

Minnesota’s other senator, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, has said the man with the most votes after the recount concludes should be seated while legal matters play out. Franken hasn’t discussed his intentions.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are ramped up in away that has not been seen since 2006 and maybe before that. The IDF’s current military operations against Hamas are offering all the conditions for a much larger picture in terms of military action and a political statement in the region. With well over several hundred air sorties missions flown and that many targets engaged; plus, the IDF has deployed the Mediterranean’s strongest navy off of the Gaza strip in support, which conducted more than 50 attacks on Thursday. Hamas has no defense against a modern military and especially against a country with the will to use it. Lessons were learned against Hizballah during 2006′s bloody and inconclusive stalemate that proved to legitimize the extremist party and strengthen them politically, which led to increased support from Syria and Iran. The Israeli leadership is hoping this conflict leads to a game changer in Gaza and will eliminate Hamas as threat to their security and destroy them politically in Gaza.

It is hard to decipher at this point because of all the changes in policies Obama supported during the course of his candidacy. He was initially against drilling in support of properly inflated tires, then reversed position because of public polling rising cost at the pumps in tough economic times. It is worth mentioning that President-elect Obama’s new interior secretary nominee Ken Salazar — a Democratic senator from Colorado expressed support for offshore drilling during the summer.

CNN

The U.S. Interior Department has completed the first step, closing a public comment period on the proposal to lease 2.9 million acres of ocean to natural gas and oil companies. The pie-shaped area begins 50 miles off Virginia’s coast, straight out from Virginia Beach on the south and across from Virginia’s boundary on the Delmarva peninsula to the north.

“The East Coast really has not been looked at for 30 years,” said Randall Luthi, who heads up the drilling plan as director of Interior’s Minerals Management Service. Luthi spoke from his Washington office to CNN Radio.

“Our best guess is that area could contain about 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas,” he said.

US govt extends comment period on offshore drilling

The U.S. Interior Department said on Friday it extended the public comment period for two weeks on whether the government should lease tracts off the Virginia coast for oil and natural gas drilling. The department’s Minerals Management Service issued a notice last month requesting comments for preparing a report on the possible environmental impacts of drilling offshore Virginia.

The “public service” group, Planned Parenthood, has recently gotten themselves into another batch of hot water. An Indiana “counselor” –I guess that is better than murder– was unknowingly video taped discussing abortion procedures with what she thought was a 13-years old girl. The 13-year old was really a 20-year-old UCLA student named Lila Rose. She told the “counselor” that she had been impregnated by a 31 year old man — an act that breaks statutory rape laws and is a felony in every state.

Two videos shot at the organization’s clinics by an anti-abortion group appear to show workers unconcerned about state law requiring anyone learning of sexual acts between an adult and a child under 14 to report them to police or child welfare authorities. A nursing aide seen in the other video was previously fired.

The “counselor” was shown in the video recording unconcerned about the details surrounding the pregnancy. “I don’t care how old he is,” the “counselor” says in the video.

Rose said Friday the group was sending both unedited videos from Indiana to authorities, even though they had not yet been contacted. She also has said her group intends to post the unedited video online.

“Self-regulation has not worked for Planned Parenthood as they have routinely evaded the very Indiana laws that protect children from sexual abuse,” Rose said in a prepared statement. She said Indiana authorities should investigate and hold Planned Parenthood accountable for its “criminal activity.”

The “counselor” later resigned and then was fired. But, the story doesn’t end there. This isn’t the case of one wayward and over zealous employ. People need to realize that these clinics are in the business of death. They blotch out and eliminate life. So what standards do we exactly expect of them to uphold?

They have shown in other states, too, that the law is not something that can prevent them from manipulating scared mothers and murdering babies providing health services.

In Kasas

The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday asked for copies of abortion records that prosecutor Phill Kline obtained to prosecute a case of illegal abortions against an Overland Park Planned Parenthood to go to the state attorney general, who already has them.

Kline filed 107 charges against the abortion business for allegedly violating state law.

The charges accuse Planned Parenthood of doing illegal late-term abortions and then falsifying medical documents to cover up their actions.

Planned Parenthood hoped to get abortion files back that two judges have determined show “probable cause” that the abortion business violated state abortion laws and falsified medical records.

And our new leader who thanks and commends all the work of Planned Parenthood in helping women, families and MEN!, all across this country. Because let’s face it; babies can be a real inconvenience. They disrupt plans, they require lots of attention and time and who has that when you are just more interested in the fews moments that it takes to create them.

The first 35 seconds is all you will need to watch.

Obama planning billion-dollar ‘bailout’ for abortion industry. A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama’s planned $1.5 billion “bailout” of the abortion industry.

Planned Parenthood Abortion Funding Requests in Obama Memo Top $4.6 Billion. Planned Parenthood and dozens of other abortion advocacy groups presented their wish list to incoming President Barack Obama in a secret memo last week that wound up published on the transition team web site. In the memo the nation’s largest abortion business requested $4.6 billion in taxpayer funding for abortion and other efforts.

Will there be any primary opposition for his Senate reelection bid? If so, please inform me. I plan on donating my life’s savings towards his or her campaign.

In a surprising rebuke to the warriors who fought for him through tough times, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday sided with President-elect Barack Obama and scolded the Republican National Committee for fanning the Illinois corruption scandal.

On ABC’s “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos asked: “The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan, has been highly critical of the way President- elect Obama has dealt with this.

“He’s had a statement every single day, saying that the Obama team should reveal all contacts they’ve had with Governor [Rod] Blagojevich. He says that Obama’s promise of transparency to the American people is now being tested. Do you agree with that?”

McCain replied: “I think that the Obama campaign should and will give all information necessary. You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody — right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don’t know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama’s campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me.”

In Minnesota, Sen. Norm Coleman is maintaining a narrow lead in the state’s recount despite the dizzying and questionable turns that race has taken.

The Republican Governors have stepped up and exerted themselves nationally on matters of fiscal responsibility, transparency in government, education reform, healthcare initiatives, and reform policies. They are recruiting and identifying individuals in various states that adhere to those principles in the hopes of winning the majority of the 38 scheduled gubernatorial races over the next two years.

Furthermore, the GOP is well aware of the gaps between the Democrat’s and Republican’s ground games. Now groups are emerging in dozens of states and leaders will go back to working for votes, formulating a clear message, and recruiting candidates in every state instead of relying on the benefit of being the party in power as became the customs in the past.

The successive losses over the past two elections, including a presidential one, have offered the chance at rejuvenation that will allow new leaders with new ideas to come forward. Most Republicans believe that the party’s principles and message is still a winning formula. They just need to do a better job of staying on that message, which has been a problem in recent years.

In the Senate, Republicans prevented the Democrat sponsored bailout plan that two-thirds of Americans are against. However, they were quick to give their reasoning behind their opposition. The most vocal and visible among them was Sen. Bob Corker.

Sen. Corker pointed out the vast differences between the UAW wages and that of non-union autoworkers in other parts of the U.S. He pointed out that the wages and entitlements are unsustainable in the current economic environment. He said that now was the time for reform for the autoindustry and the UAW. The decision to vote no should offer a wonderful opportunity to enact them. He repeated the points shared by most that It would be irresponsible to give taxpayer dollars over to continue to subsidize a failed system. A failure at reform led to the No vote and was not the fault of Republicans and others against the bailout.

The American people overwhelmingly agree with that logic and if President Bush should go against the wishes of his Senators, it will only relieve the GOP of the Bush stigma. According to the American people, the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue and the GOP’s stance on the auto industry bailout will gain them political capital and work greatly towards their favor.

The Republicans are in full fledge comeback mode and will work hard to define themselves as the party of accountability and responsibility and will look for openings if the Democrats overreach during these tough economic times.

However, something more profound has been offered in the form of “Blagogate.” Nothing substantial has been brought forward connecting President-elect Obama to any wrong doings but, at the very least, it is causing unwanted distractions and raising questions evolving around his administration.

Obama has handled the situation uncharacteristically sporadic. At first, he offered that he had no contact or held any discussions with Gov. Blagojevich over his vacant senate seat. This, of course, was in direct contradiction with David Axlerod’s comment. Obama later said that he was confident that no one in his staff participated in any discussions with the governor. Then as pressure mounted even from his loyal base in the media, he offered to gather information on his transition team’s actions.

Now more and more reports are surfacing, some from within the Obama camp, that Rahm Emanuel had discussions with Blago and offered the governor Obama’s desired Senate candidates. The ongoing developments have brought the case dangerously close to President-elect Obama.

All of the sudden the American political atmosphere has stopped being about Bush. The Republicans are no longer hampered by defending positions and decisions of their president. Instead, they are now the opposition and are fighting against the incumbent. The historic nature and extreme media exposure are expected to prevent Obama the typical honeymoon period usually enjoyed by incoming presidents. Instead, he is already seen as the incumbent due to a nearly two year campaign, in which he largely dominated. These factors play heavily on public opinion and the pulse of the American people.

The GOP sees an opening and are playing the usual role as the spirited opposition party on a crusade against corruption and ethic violations in just the same way Democrats did in 2006 when the Republicans were rocked by their own during the mid-terms elections.

The calls from pundits that the GOP should rethink its philosophy are not what most Republicans have in mind. Most conservatives in America (which outnumber liberals) believe in the party’s principles and message. However, just like most Americans, conservatives believed that the GOP got off of that message and started governing like a party of power, not principle. The GOP leadership recognizes this and looks to reform their intra-party workings while slowly rebuilding their case to the American people.

If the Democrats continue to offer situations that help build the GOP’s case the easier that task will be and the sooner they will be threatening Democratic control.

I guess the most appropriate question would be: Where’s the love Mac?

Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” McCain was asked whether Palin could count on his support.

“I can’t say something like that,” McCain said. “We’ve got some great other young governors. I think you’re going to see the governors assume a greater leadership role in our Republican Party,” he said.

Barack Obama unwittingly caused a kerfuffle the other day when a reporter spotted him working out with a Microsoft Zune — rather than his trusty iPod.

When word got out, Apple geeks went crazy, and the media — from Wired to the Wall Street Journal — flooded the zone. Suddenly, the phone lines at the Obama transition office were ringing with questions from reporters who passed up other pressing curiosities — who will be the education secretary? — to unpack Obama’s choice of MP3 players.

Welcome to the world of the celebrity president.

Reporters have been bombarding the president-elect’s transition office and those close to Obama with the most detail-obsessed questions about his every move.

Among the inquiries received in recent weeks:

Does Obama prefer Macs or PCs? Who designed that tie he’s wearing? Where does he buy his suits? What’s his morning exercise routine like? How about his basketball techniques? What movie has he seen recently? Who cuts his hair? Will he sell his house in Chicago?

What did he have for Thanksgiving dinner? What’s his favorite food?

And by the way, why hasn’t he been going to church on Sundays? And if he does start going regularly, where does he plan to attend church once he moves to Washington?

Earlier in the year, Us Weekly echoed that 1992 MTV moment when Bill Clinton was asked if he wore boxers or briefs. Obama’s reply: “I don’t answer those humiliating questions. But whichever one it is, I look good in ‘em.”

I’m not criticizing Joe because he is speaking ill of McCain. I’m sure he is telling the truth.

My only point is, who cares what he thinks. To listen to him about his “education on politics” as he says in his interview is like taking business advice from someone who one a $million on a scratch off.

Like I said, enjoy your fame, save the newspaper clippings, and move on.

Politico

Joe Wurzelbacher lashed out Tuesday at former GOP presidential nominee John McCain, the man who made Wurzelbacher famous as “Joe the Plumber.”

Wurzelbacher told conservative radio host Glenn Beck that he felt “dirty” after “being on the campaign trail and seeing some of the things that take place.”

Recalling a conversation he had with McCain about the $700 billion financial industry bailout in September, Wurzelbacher said: “When I was on the bus with him, I asked him a lot of questions about the bailout because most Americans did not want that to happen.”

“I asked him some pretty direct questions,” he continued. “Some of the answers you guys are gonna receive — they appalled me, absolutely. I was angry. In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him.”

Asked why he didn’t leave McCain’s campaign if he was “appalled” by the candidate, Wurzelbacher said, “honestly, because the thought of Barack Obama as president scares me even more.”

While Wurzelbacher was critical of McCain during the interview, he had nothing but praise for his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. “Sarah Palin is absolutely the real deal,” he said.

Go here for the interview

With such a high-profile position in a very powerful and wealthy state, many Democrats believe they should decide soon on which candidate to appoint and one that will be able to raise tens of millions of dollars it will take to retain and defend the seat in 2010 and 2012. So far, Kennedy is winning with name recognition and star power and is almost certain to have the luxury of a sitting President to help her when it matters most. This may persuade (D) Governor Paterson to opt for Caroline’s pedigree and connections in choosing her to fill the seat.

It is without a doubt the U.S. Senate seat will bring on very wealthy and connected candidates that will likely make the price tag alone untouchable for most. There is already speculation in both parties that the cost of the upcoming campaign’s in 2010 and 2012 could reach $40 million and for the Republicans could even mean more as it is certain there will be a brutal primary because no clear frontrunner has emerged.

However, the Democrats may be saved from this nightmare. In a country that loves to fall for stories, Caroline’s may bring on a rush of nostalgia that may lift her above the fray. Her obvious interest in the seat would mean the continuation of the Kennedy name in politics. The legacy started almost 60 years ago, 56 to be exact, when her father, John F. Kennedy, was elected as the junior senator from Massachusetts.

And, of course, her uncle Edward has represented Massachusetts in the Senate for more than forty years. Robert Kennedy, her uncle, served as junior senator from New York from 1965 until 1968 when he was assassinated during his presidential campaign.

Those are some very formidable surrogates to draw from in any contest.

Kennedy has very limited political history herself. She has chosen to stay out of the limelight of politics until she decided to endorse and actively support Barack Obama throughout the campaign. Her most prominent public roles and media exposure involved overseeing her father’s presidential library and presenting the annual Profiles in Courage Award.

Oddly, this may play towards her favor. She cannot help the fact that she is a Kennedy and, a president’s daughter, so this will naturally play towards her favor. What is more, she has a conscious history of avoiding the nasty partisan politics and the natural memory of her father may neutralize any attacks from potential challengers for the seat.

The reports are surfacing that it is her seat already. Her friends and family are all encouraging her to accept the appointment and continue the legacy of the family name. It is starting to look like a done deal.

It is expected that Gov. Paterson will name the replacement after Clinton’s is confirmed as Secretary of State next month.

He made no attempt at disparages in his motives and conditions when he told the Obama administration he wanted something big in return for naming the President-elect’s chosen candidate to fill his vacant U.S. Senate seat. Under the state’s law the governor has the authority to appoint replacements.

The FBI says it has taped conversations which Blagojevich can be heard complaining that the Obama advisers involved were telling him that he had to “suck it up . . . and give this mother—-er [the President-elect]] his senator. F— him. For nothing? F— him.”

Fitzgerald stated Tuesday that “there is no allegation in the complaint that the president-elect was aware of it and that is all I can say,” according to ABCNews.com.

However, the first signs of disconnect within the Obama camp are showing otherwise. President-elect Obama spoke earlier today and stated that he had no contact with governor and was unaware of his dealings. David Axlerod, Obama’s senior adviser, said something entirely different in that Obama had spoken with the governor and was active in the process over his vacant Senate seat, but later reversed his statement and said they never talked about it.

At any rate, the 76-page indictment case refers to Obama and his administration as much as 40 times.

How much did Obama know?

In the report, Blagojevich and Harris spoke with an unidentified adviser believed to be part of Obama’s transition team on November 7. He stated his desire to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by Obama in exchange for appointing Obama’s #1 candidate. His motivation was that he was suffering financially and according to the indictment plainly stated, “I want to make money.”

Secondly, there was also an alleged three-way deal that would again benefit the governor while placating the Obama camp. The deal involved Blagojevich appointing Obama’s said candidate, and in return Obama would use his powers to appoint Blagojevich to SEIU appointment that heads a large labor organization. Obama’s adviser sitting in on the meeting apparently liked the idea of a three-way deal.

Thirdly, the governor realized that he could be operating at a disadvantage during the negotiations because of the ongoing investigation on him. He was prepared to play hardball with the Obama camp and appoint his own candidate to fill the seat before he would give into Obama’s wishes without anything in return. He made it clear that he would not agree to Obama’s candidate without a quid pro quo from the White House. Again, the governor shamelessly pointed to financial gain as his motivations telling Obama’s unidentified advisor he wanted to make $250,000 to $300,000 annually.

Throughout the recordings, Blagojevich was confident he would get something from the Obama administration in exchange for the Senate seat.

There is no proof that has surfaced showing anyone inside the immediate Obama camp was aware of the unlawful actions and negotiations between Blagojevich, Harris, and the unidentified Obama adviser. Still, there was at least some knowledge by people in the Obama camp that was at least aware of what Blagojevich was trying accomplish by using Obama’s desire to name his successor and his power as President. That will, of course, raise some ugly questions and potential legal issues for the Obama administration, especially if Blagojevich comes forth with information and the unknown advisers and candidate’s identities surface, which they surely will.

As of now, however, such allegations are circumstantial and there is no proof that Obama was directly related in the negotiations.

But, given that Obama and Blagojevich frequent the same circles and have been associated with the same people in the past; plus, Obama enthusiastically supported the governor for his reelection bid, leaves more to be desired than his most recent remarks on Blagojevich’s arrest.

He’s from Illinois, young, smart and has a natural talent for relating to voters. And no, he’s not Barack Obama: he’s Aaron Schock, the newly elected U.S. representative for Illinois’ 18th district. Even Biden would like him — he’s young, clean, and articulate, and at 27, will bring a Generation Y voice to Congress in January.

Miller says:“Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition,” Miller writes. “The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

The little deary is trying to educate our stone-age minds so that we can step out of the shadows and into fast lane to secular progressivism. You see it starts right here with Jesus’ notable indifference and ambiguity in the book of Matthew, ch. 19.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

How does any of that show ambiguity or indifference? I see very pointed guidance that addresses one man and one woman.

Now behold Her Ignorance, Lisa Miller continues:

Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

First of all, marriage is mentioned elsewhere throughout the bible. Genesis, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians 5, just to name a few. But I’m still puzzled over the indifference and ambiguity that Ms. Miller is referring to. Neither Jesus nor Paul were endorsing celibacy or lowering the institution of marriage to less than significant in the eyes of God. Paul states his message on celibacy in 1 Corinthians as a gift and if one is strong enough to do without marriage, he or she should do so and serve whole heartedly.

He was also anything but lukewarm to the idea of marriage. These are Paul’s own words:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

Eph. 5

Her ignorance knows no bounds. Since she comes off as an expert and says that “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.”

That is exactly what is taught Ms. Miller and could go along way in figuring out those pesky stats that I’m sure you are aware of and despise. The ones that show couples that attend church together, pray together, stay together.

Mark Hemingway at NRO’s The Corner has this to say:

Yup, sounds like Jesus was really indifferent on marriage and family question — but hey, thanks for trying to take his followers “at their word.” Marriage is one of the central metaphors of the New Testament, for crying out loud. It’s generally a Christian precept to put the best construction on what a speaker is saying. However, the best I can do here is vacillate between whether or not it’s possible for a religion reporter to be this ignorant or wonder to what extent Miller’s personal politics have made her so willfully uncharitable in describing what a large majority of American Christians believe regarding marriage.

In spite of what Ms. Miller thinks, marriage is not about gender equality or romantic love. Those precepts are emotional drivel. Sure romantic love is involved in the mix but it is also animalistic and fleeting. Marriage is a sacrament between man and woman who live life through the love in one another. It is not romantic love because romantic love is selfish. It is based off how the other person makes you feel. Love is a decision, rational thought, and something that is mutually shared between two people. More importantly, a very basic function of marriage is for procreation. To bring up a new generation where the parents equip them with the tools and values that are needed to one day replace them. That way the generational links remain inter-locked and forever binding.

Secular movements are almost always based off emotion and she did a wonderful job pointing that out. Her child-like mind baffles me considering her supposed expertise in such matters. Marriage has nothing to do with gender equality or romantic love. Romantic love is what made you sneak out of your window at night. It is irrational. Love makes you stay in so that you can get sleep, work hard, and provide for your family the best way that you possibly can.

The article and the author show exactly the type of sophistication and deep intellect “religious conservatives,” and we “social conservatives” whoever they may be, are dealing with. It is almost like I just had a conversation with a child.

To ensure they do not lose vital support of their urban base the Democrats are on the verge of delivering $15 billion bail out plan to General Motors and Chrysler and Ford will receive help too bringing the total to around $35 billion (I may be off by a billion but does it really matter? It’s only paper money) that will restructure the auto industry.

The money comes with oversight. We will now have a “car tsar,” or a “Minister of Interior Production” if you will. The Democrats are pushing for a seven-member board that will set up guidelines for the auto-industry to operate by. If Ford, GM and Chrysler, or the Big Three as they have so affectionately become known by, falter or do not meet satisfaction the “Minister of Interior Production” will recall the money.

What is wrong with that, you ask?

As I said earlier, union workers and urbanites keep the Democratic Party fed and clothed so there is no way that the auto-industry and its unions in Detroit will disappear. The laws that govern the markets are as perfect as the ones that govern nature. Unfortunately, our lawmakers govern us, and they are very imperfect.

My point is this; we are still going to pay regardless. We will prop up the auto industry whether it succeeds or falls. If it does indeed fall, the federal government will be the owners of the auto-industry. The new CEO will be the “Minister of Interior Production.” We pay. And we pay. Those are the options. That is the decision formulated by the brightest minds in Washington.

Never mind that the economic environment in our country can no longer sustain our automotive industry. It is not even supported by the current economy and consumer choice. Alas, that is where our tax dollars come in. Once again, we pay. Once again, they are the lawmakers.

The Democrats are stipulating that benchmarks will be drafted so that they will have major say so on executive pay, bans on stock dividends while the loans remain outstanding. They would even have to seek government approval for any business transaction of $25 million or more. The new “Minister of Interior Production” can also convene on meetings of stakeholders in the auto-industry.

These are all just concessions, of course. The real problems are not being addressed. That includes our trade policies, where we remain at huge disadvantage, and our corporate tax that handcuffs us in the global market. It’s the second highest in the modern industrialized world. Why to protect unions so they can make $85.00 an hour.

And it is union labor has driven the auto-industry off a cliff (no pun intended). When an average foreign mid-size car be built in the South, where the work force is labor free, and can offer $1200-1800 more in modern features because that money is not used to pay inflated labor cost, pensions, and retirement, it is a no-brainer for the consumer.

I am as patriotic as any American. I buy American products and support America. However, I own two Toyotas — don’t worry they were built by American labor. Furthermore, by me purchasing the Toyotas I helped to feed American families and helped to secure a number of jobs for Americans. I chose not to buy a car with vastly limited features at a higher cost and, best of all, the market provided me that choice.

That is the fundamental problem that is facing our American auto-industry. It is a failed model from antiquity and no amount of money, oversight, or restructuring will change that. The industry must adapt to the demands of the modern consumer or…we will support them, unwillingly, through our tax dollars?

Not quite the desired effect I had in mind.

Sadly, that is the reality of the situation. For years the Democrats bought union workers with handouts and protection. It looks like now we will be buying their support for them.