E!!

Let Freedom Ring has a pledge designed to hold congressmen accountable for reading the entire health care bill before they vote on it.

(How ridiculous is it that we even have to have such things?)

Here’s what the website says:

All 535 Members of the U.S. House and Senate have received multiple copies of the Pledge by fax, email, regular mail or personal visitation. Any Representative or Senator not shown on the list of signers below may therefore reasonably be classified as having declined to sign. A few Senators have insisted that although they are supportive of our Pledge, they have adopted a blanket policy against signing pledges that prevents their signing ours. Although Let Freedom Ring believes that that they should make an exception for our pledge, because it is narrowly drawn and quite specific, we have agreed to post letters from those Senators in a separate section following the list of signers. You may read the letters by clicking on the Senators’ names.

Go see the list.  And download the pledge if you want to send it directly to your own rep.

Las Vegas Sun political analyst Jon Ralston nails one, but good.

I challenge you to read every single word.  Then, if you live in Nevada, take a moment to feel some deep-seated disgust at the passing of a neutered campaign finance disclosure bill that won’t even kick in until 2011.  Then contact your Assembly representative to demand that they give the bill’s balls back (and perhaps lend a pair to GOP Assemblyman James Settelmeyer, whose objections against the measure seem pretty wimpy).

And while you’re at it, contact Sec. of State Ross Miller’s office to suggest that they make online filing easier.  Chuck Muth said the following about the process as it exists now:

I have a PAC (political action committee) and once tried filing my [financial report] online.  And I gotta tell you, it was a royal pain in the you-know-what.  The process set up by the Secretary of State’s office is decidedly not user-friendly and is unduly complicated to navigate and complete.  No wonder so many candidates, PACs, and ballot advocacy groups opt to simply fill out the forms by hand.

Miller is on the right track pushing for online reporting, but he also needs to get his own house in order. It shouldn’t be too difficult to allow campaigns using, say, Quickbooks, to import the required information directly into the campaign reporting system at the SoS’s office instead of having to type it out separately a second time.

Timely online transparency should be a requirement not only for campaign finance reporting, but for all publicly funded agencies and organizations.  It’s something we can all agree on – or should.

Subject link:  Check out the Nevada Project at Sunshine Review.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

RedState lists a few things the Senate plans to add to the Stimulus anti-Stimulus bill.

Because Americans are calling for “More pork, please!”

So says the Toronto Star.

“I don’t know why I was turned back,” Ayers said.  “I got off the plane like everyone else and I was asked to come over to the other side. The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn’t going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting … If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn’t possibly be a threat to Canada.”

Agree:  because Canada is already a socialist nation so Ayers-like covert bombing ops are not really necessary.

 Just received a press release (statement) from the Titus campaign.  Here are some excerpts:

Titus: Bailout Package Is One More Example of How Washington Is Broken

1.  Titus fails to mention that the government policies which birthed the Fannie/Freddie financial crisis were enacted in the Carter and Clinton administrations with the approval of both Ds and Rs in Congress, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately dishonest.

2.  Titus says Bush and Porter are to blame for the lack of oversight when nearly everyone including the present Democratic leadership was complicit in looking the other way, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately partisan.

3.  Titus rips Porter for being in favor of the imperfect bailout bill, but then says “with so many critical tax breaks” for Nevada she would have “reluctantly” voted for the inadequate bill also, so she’s either very confused…or being hypocritical.

Porter voted for the bill.  Titus bloviates at length – and then says she would have voted for the bill.  When all the ranting and raving is done, what in Sam Hill is the difference?!

Neither the guy who’s in, nor the gal who wants to BE in, has the gumption to stand on principle and fight for good policy when there are special tax credits to be had.  Of course:  how else could they ingratiate themselves to the voters?  Just look at all they’ve done for you!!

That’s a REAL example of how Washington is broken – and Nevada, too. 

The sky’s been falling on Wall Street, and now hell is officially freezing over: Harry Reid is defending the same tax cuts that he once opposed and blasted as being “for the rich.”

So says Susan Jones of CNS News, who is reporting on the Senate debates of the “rescue bill” (still an Obama-ism, still smacks of false victimology, still hate it).

In an attempt to grease the Senate wheels on this bill, Reid now says he supports an Alternative Minimum Tax relief: $8 billion for natural disaster victims, and $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extended tax breaks.

Reid’s commentary included statements like “we’ve got to get this done” and “it would be a blight on this Congress not to pass these tax extenders” and “tens of thousands of jobs will be created.”

How wonderful that liberal Democrat Harry Reid has finally admitted that tax cuts help businesses and create middle class jobs.

Pigs, commence flight.

Update:  George reminds us that Obama had a revelation on taxation also:  when he said that as president he would delay rolling back the Bush tax cuts if the economy was weak…essentially acknowledging that tax hikes hurt the economy.

Well, we now have proof positive that hanging out at the New York Times will muddle up anyone’s brain.  David Brooks, once a semi reliable conservative thinker, has penned a lamentation (“Revolt of the Nihilists”) so full of hand-wringing angst that, as Laura Ingraham quipped this morning, “it makes my hair hurt.”

Brooks says the failure of the “rescue package” (that’s an Obama-ism, BTW, and does nothing to endear me to the concept since I abhor victim mentalities of all kinds) means our political leaders have ”failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed.”

Apparently for Brooks, defeat of this bill equals de facto anarchy in America.

Brooks then makes a few apt remarks (ok, so he has not completely lost it), but quickly disappoints again:

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

No:  they showed the world that they were willing to listen to the people who elected them, the constituents in their own districts, who bombarded their offices with variations of “vote no” via email and telephone because they (we) don’t trust the “leaders,” and the “experts” at the Treasury and the Fed.  And why the heck should we, after a colossal failure of social engineering the likes of which this nation has never seen…?!

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Good freaking grief, Mr. Brooks!  These House Republicans (and the 95 Democrats who voted with them) are the ONLY people standing up for proper conservative principles, including taking a careful, pragmatic approach to complex problems rather than giving people like Paulson a blank check. 

And nobody on the right led an “anti-immigration crusade”:  they just asked the U.S. government to enforce its own laws (what nerve, ay?!)  As for your take on the ”complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds,” stick with the op-eds because a gifted psychoanalyst you’re not.  The only anxiety we’re having is over whether this bill will really fix what’s wrong, and whether anyone in D.C. is willing to do the hard work of making sure it does.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.

So now we’re all just mindless sheep who totter zombie-like after Rush and Laura who are themselves out of touch with real life?  Do you have any idea how elitist and left wing that sounds?  Perhaps you’d like to come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine also so we can get a dose of “reality” and not be hypnotized by the likes of the evil Limbaugh?

I can’t quote the rest of your op-ed, because frankly, my hair hurts.  My advice to you is stop wringing your pretty little hands and give it some time.  A bill will be passed; the markets will not collapse; and all will be well, if a little dicey for a time. 

And please stop calling it a “rescue” because that’s one of the words that is turning us off out here in Sheepville.

Roll Call is reporting that the House “voted 228-205 to reject the financial sector bailout bill crafted over the weekend by a bipartisan group of House and Senate negotiators. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) all had urged Members to support the bill. But House Republicans rejected it by a 2-1 margin, and more than 90 Democrats voted no.”

Well, as a writer/journalist/blogger, there is nothing like reading something you strongly disagree with to wake you up and get your day started right.  Such is the case with Treasury Secretary Paulson’s statement before the Senate Banking Committee.

Anne of Valley County, Idaho writes to inform me of a story in today’s Idaho Statesman re: legislation to compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves. 

A Senate committee on Thursday approved a bill sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming to approve federal matching money for state trust funds that pay ranchers for those losses.

The Bush administration has objected to the bill, saying the payments should be a state responsibility.

But Anne says Idaho didn’t have a say (vote to) have the wolves “re-introduced.” 

And she puts that in quotes because the Feds didn’t bring in their native little red wolf, but the larger grey – which never roamed those parts to begin with.

So, this was and is a federal program.

As an aside, Anne notes that two weeks ago, one of their ranchers lost three calves in one day, all of them senselessly slaughtered (i.e., not eaten). 

Asked on CBN about his past opposition to an Illinois bill protecting babies born after surviving botched abortions, Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Someone IS lying, but is it “folks” or is it Obama?  Here are the facts:

In 2000, when Congress took up legislation clarifying that infants born alive after abortions are Persons under the law, the bill passed the House 380 to 15…yet in 2001, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he verbally opposed and then voted “present” – effectively a ”no” – on a similar bill. 

(Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a “no” vote because only “yes” votes count toward the passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of reasons, including making it harder for political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.)

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” saying it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill unanimously passed the House and Senate and was signed into law…yet in 2003, back in Illinois, Obama still opposed the state version of the law.

Obama has been saying he voted against that bill because it didn’t include the same “neutrality clause” as the federal form – but the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has now found documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted against it anyway.

Confronted about this, Obama said the NRLC was lying…but his campaign has since admitted Obama is “mistaken.”  Once again, Obama either doesn’t know his own record or is so comfortable lying that falsehoods roll off his tongue with ease.

When asked by Pastor Rick Warren @ Saddelback when a baby has rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.”  Apparently Obama’s predictable equivocating is exceeded only by his ability to state the obvious with all the seriousness of a self-styled Socrates. 

In that same forum at Saddleback, Obama said that deciding when a baby gets the rights of Personhood is “above his pay grade.”  But shouldn’t our chief executive have an opinion about the legal definition of a Person…especially if he says he is willing to permit abortions in ANY circumstance? 

Put another way, what kind of morally bankrupt and moronic person says he realizes there is a serious ethical aspect to an issue, and then says it is beyond the scope of his capabilities to decide the matter, but then goes ahead and makes a choice anyway?  I mean, doesn’t any sane and reasonable person stay neutral on issues of which he is unsure?

One would think so, but in 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation he’d sign into law as our president. The act would end ALL current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions.

I usually avoid name-calling here on E!! but today I make an exception.

Barack Obama is either an Idiot or Pathological Liar or Both.  I cannot think of any candidate in recent times who was/is less deserving of the presidency.