Mr Pruden Always Saves the Best for Last

Would the government lie to you?

Good citizens must resist the temptation to regard their government as the enemy, since we know that no government agency would ever lie, cheat and steal from us. So don’t worry. Be happy. If you can.

James Clapper, director of U.S. intelligence, pours on a little soothing syrup. The snooping, he says, “cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. persons located outside the United States.” Of course not. But note the weasel word “intentionally,” and what, exactly, is a “U.S. person” if he is not a citizen? The Washington Post reports that, while in one surveillance program American citizens are not “intended” to be targets of surveillance, large quantities of “content” from Americans are nevertheless screened to track or learn more about the target.

Clapper, during his testimony to Congress, had the appearence of an 8 year old boy who had been caught with copies of Hustler magazine. The hand gestures, the eye movements, the inability to look at the questioner while answering a direct query regarding whether or not the NSA was spying on US citizens, all were red flags and klaxon horns that said "I'm lying to you right now." The other "weasel word" of the day was "wittingly". Anyone who thinks this current administration would not use the powers of any government agnecy to suppress dissent and silence opposition, has not turned on a TV, listened to a radio or read a newspaper in the last 3 months. We know they will. They already have.

Wes Pruden On Being Clever

The question we should be asking is what prompted Dear Leader to even speak about it in a context which suggests he had knowledge of the outcome. Of course, there's always the Spider and the Fly scenario discussed in a previous post shamelessly purloined from the WashTimes via our good friend Kerry Pickett. (Freepers Rule).

When Clever Only Looks Like Dumb

The court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns his health-care scheme because it was enacted by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” the President declared. Obamacare actually cleared the House by only seven votes, 219 to 212, and on their face the president’s remarks betray an astonishing ignorance of the Constitution and how the republic works.

But Barack Obama is neither dumb nor ignorant. The man praised as the greatest orator since Demosthenes celebrated hope and change in ancient Greece knows better than to bandy words foolishly. So why would he say something so foolish and dumb?

HANSON: Drilling is a win, win choice for U.S. - Washington Times

HANSON: Drilling is a win, win choice for U.S. - Washington Times

When the summer driving season starts soon, and tension heats up about Iran, gas may reach $5 a gallon. Nothing bothers voters more than paying an extra $20 or $30 every time they fill up. In times like these, they soon might prefer even an oilman in the White House to an ideologue whose opposition to new oil development seems more religious than empirically based.

All presidents, of course, usually get the blame when the price of gas skyrockets and praise when it plummets, just like they own a bad or good economy, or a successful or failed war.

Presidents can affect gas prices, at least in the long term, by exercising budgetary discipline resulting in a currency that buys more oil per dollar, by approving or rejecting federal oil leases, and by adding or curbing regulations that affect oil exploration and development. In all of these cases, Mr. Obama has supported policies that contribute to higher gas prices.

Finally, Romney gets tea party support - Washington Times

Finally, Romney gets tea party support - Washington Times

Well, my buds over at FreedomWorks have seen the writing on the wall. I knew at some point they would. After all, they're quite possibly the smartest, most dedicated bunch of young men and women I have ever had the pleasure of working with. Former Texas Congressman Dick Armey is an economist, not a lawyer. He understands the economy better than most.

We here at UCV wanted Hermain Cain. A businessman with a proven track record of success. Not being able to get Cain on the ballot in time was a setback. I know my other editor has the "they all suck, pick one" attitude. But its time to rally behind the strongest candidate. We have to defeat Dear Leader in November.

The fate of America rests on this election. No less than the future for our children and grandchildren is at stake.

Rabble and Scum OWS NOT the TEA Party

Pat has this one up from the Washington Times.

Cantor may be another Republican establishment politician, but he's MY Republican establisment representative and in this particular instance, he's right.

The stark visceral differences between the rabble and scum (hey, I like that...rabble and scum) turning New York streets and parks into open effluent ponds, and the members of the TEA Party are painfully obvious to anyone who's willing to accept reality. Carney lives in another dimension.

Book Burning Is An Expression of Bigotry

Just as public demonstrations of hate for anyone are expressions of bigotry, so is book burning. An over simplification of the definition of bigotry is a belief that one is morally and intellectually superior to all others and no one is right but them. Jones didn't kill those people in Afghanistan, but he tripped the triggers of those who are by nature violent and bigoted. Radical islamists are bigots and need very little provocation to act out. They do not have the wiring in their brains to allow them to embrace the philosophy of freedom of expression. The problem is, Jones essentially yelled FIRE!!! in a crowded theater knowing the crowd would panic and trample one another, and there was no fire. Jones caused the deaths of those people just as surely as if he had been there. But Jones is a bigot and bigots don't care about innocents.

Gates On the F-35

Uncle Jimbo has a piece in the WashTimes trying to decide who won this debate between SecDef Gates and SecDef Gates:

Robert M. Gates is on his farewell lap as secretary of defense and is making his final speeches to the service academies. He also seems to be debating himself in the process. He made the following remarks to Army cadets at West Point:

“And I must tell you, when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq and more - we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged."

“The need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with and destroy the enemy will always be there, as veterans of Sadr City and Fallujah can no doubt attest.”

As Jimbo so eloquently states, "Thats common sense right there"

He [Gates] also said this:

“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as Gen. MacArthur so delicately put it.”

So now we've eliminated two whole continents and the center of Islamic extremism.

Now Lets hear the SecDef at the Air Force Academy:

“That includes the requirement for more sophisticated, high-end capabilities. I’ve said before that it would be irresponsible to assume that a future adversary - given enough time, money and technological acumen - will not one day be able to directly threaten U.S. command of the skies.

“So even as I’ve touted the need to incorporate the lessons of the current conflicts, I have also committed the Department of Defense - and this country - to the most advanced and expensive tactical fighter program in history - the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The department is programmed to buy 2,400 of these aircraft, and the first Air Force training aircraft will arrive at Eglin Air Force Base in just over two months. Having a robust, large quantity of fifth-generation tactical air fighters is something I view as a core requirement, and in this era of increasing budget constraints, my goal has been to ensure that core capabilities for all the services are protected. This has meant increasing development funding for the F-35, scaling back or cutting other programs that are not as essential and intervening directly to get the program back on track, on budget and on schedule.”

What Could Possibly Go Wrong With This Idea?

One password for everything and the government KNOWS what it is? Uh huh, I'm down with that. NOT!!! NOT!!! NOT!!!!

EDITORIAL: Obama's Internet passport
Administration wants national ID card for online commentary

Federalized security screening at airports has been such a success that President Obama wants to apply the same government "expertise" to the realm of online commerce and commentary. The White House cybersecurity adviser joined Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Jan. 7 to announce what amounts to a national ID card for the Internet.

Their plan is straightforward. Instead of logging onto Facebook or one's bank using separate passwords established with each individual company or website, the White House will take the lead in developing what it calls an "identity ecosystem" that will centralize personal information and credentials. This government-approved system would issue a smart card or similar device that would confirm an individual's identity when making online credit-card purchases, accessing electronic health care records, posting "anonymous" blog entries or even logging onto one's own home computer, according to administration documents

Read the rest here.

Thank You Washington Times and Gina Elise

POWERS: Keep troops in mind year round
The holidays are nice, but the new year could be bleak

The election is over, and even as politicians and pundits prepare for the battle ahead, two small organizations are already gearing up for a January fight. While the political fights ahead have the potential to influence millions in future generations, this fight will impact hundreds, though in a more profound way.

The field is being set between now and January. While politics will continue, many will set aside partisanship for the holidays. One area that will see this more than any other is service to our wounded troops. Between Thanksgiving and New Year's, they will receive a torrent of celebrity visits, holiday parties, special events and more. It can be overwhelming, but it shows the care and compassion that is America.

However, on Jan. 2, that torrent abruptly cuts off. As overwhelming as it may have been, the sudden silence can take ordinary post-holiday blues and make them something much worse. Gina Elise, who founded the charity Pin-Ups for Vets, decided something needed to be done. She has joined with another small charity, Cooking With the Troops, to fight those blues for the U.S. and Allied troops, families and caregivers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

More after the jump

Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax, Its A Fine, Its NOT a Tax

"Legal arguments for Obamacare's individual mandate fail the 'Alice in Wonderland' test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration's legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat.

'The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,' Judge Steeh ruled.

This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday's preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress' power is far less extensive.

Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a 'penalty,' explicitly changing its description from a 'tax' that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice's admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can't 'mean so many different things' as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, 'Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing ... [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.'

Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it's not a tax.

His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it's the Obama administration's fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce."

--The Washington Times

Islamic Extremists Are the Enemy

Bambi and the rest of the Disney characters occupying the White House aren't calling anyone our enemy. They won't even use the terms islam and terrorism in the same paragraph. As long as followers of Islam respect the rights of non-muslims to worship freely, I have no issues with them. Unfortunately, Islam, via the Koran, tells followers they must not allow kafirs, infidels, to worship at all. So how do you be a good muslim and still respect the rights of others?

You can't, according to the extremists.

This is a long article but well worth the read:
Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam'

People in the administration should be making the clear distinction between Islam, which is a religion and which is not our enemy, and extremist Islamism, which is a political ideology and is our enemy. … The fact is our enemies fly the banner of Islam. They claim to represent the religion. There are other people in the religion who say they don't. What we need to be clear about is, our enemy has an extremist political
ideology. They describe that ideology as the true religion. And there is no way we can deal with this phenomenon without confronting the fact that the enemy political ideology is rooted in a religion."

They Are Drilling There Now

Or allowing China to do it 50 miles off our coast.

PERRY: America can't afford not to drill in Gulf
If we don't, hostiles like Cuba and Venezuela will

Those who disparage offshore drilling - and seem eager to ban it - ignore that the Gulf of Mexico accounts for one-third of U.S. oil production. Without domestic production, we would be spending even more on imported oil - which already is running $1.5 billion a day.

Any sensible response to the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig - and the huge oil spill that's fouling Gulf waters - needs to recognize two facts: First, the demand for oil is expected to increase. Second, America cannot suddenly stop offshore drilling.

The best place in the United States to find new oil is in the Gulf's untapped deep-water areas, in the Atlantic and off Alaska. These three new drilling areas combined hold as much as 22 billion barrels of oil, which is more than our current total estimated reserves. This oil would help meet U.S. energy needs for decades.

But if those areas are closed to oil production, we would need to import more oil from overseas, probably from countries that are nationalistic and, in some cases, hostile. Some of the countries are run by despots such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

But in the grand scheme of things, the extreme left-wing nutjob enviro nazi whackos would love to see El Jefe' and Ugo come out on top.

Semper Fidelis

Seeing a fallen soldier home
Gratitude should be foremost in American hearts and minds

His name was Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson - although I did not know it when his life brushed mine on March 25 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Lance Cpl. Wilson was not there in the terminal that afternoon; at age 24 and newly married, he had been killed in Afghanistan on March 22 by a roadside bomb. A coincidence of overbooked flights led our lives to intersect for perhaps an hour, one I will never forget.

I did not meet his family that day at the airport, either, although we were there together that evening at the gate, among the crowd hoping to board the oversold flight. I did not know that I had a boarding pass and they did not. I did not know they were trying to get home to hold his funeral, having journeyed to Dover, Del., to meet his casket upon its arrival from Afghanistan.

I also did not know that they already had been stuck for most of the day in another airport because of other oversold flights. But I did not need to know this to realize what they were going through as the event unfolded and to understand the larger cause for it. No matter how we as a nation have relearned the lesson forgotten during Vietnam - that our military men and women and their families deserve all the support we can give them - despite our nation's fighting two wars in this decade, it is all too easy for most of us to live our lives without having the very great human cost of those wars ever intrude.

But it did intrude heartbreakingly that day at the airport gate. It began simply enough, with the usual call for volunteers: Anyone willing to take a later flight would receive a $500 flight voucher. Then came the announcement none of us was prepared to hear. There was, the airline representative said, a family on their way home from meeting their son's body as it returned from Afghanistan, and they needed seats on the flight. And there they were, standing beside her, looking at us, waiting to see what we would decide. It wasn't a hard decision for me; my plans were easily adjusted. I volunteered, as did two women whom I later learned sacrificed important personal plans.

But we three were not enough: Six were needed. So we stood there watching the family - dignified and mute, weighed with grief and fatigue - as the airline representative repeatedly called for assistance for this dead soldier's family. No one else stepped forward. The calls for volunteers may have lasted only 20 or 30 minutes, but it seemed hours. It was almost unbearable to watch, yet to look away was to see the more than 100 other witnesses to this tragedy who were not moved to help. Then it did become unbearable when, in a voice laced with desperation and tears, the airline representative pleaded, "This young man gave his life for our country, can't any of you give your seats so his family can get home?" Those words hung in the air. Finally, enough volunteers stepped forward.

I had trouble sleeping that night; I could not get out of my mind the image of the family or the voice pleading for them.When I met my fellow volunteers the next morning at the airport, I found I was not alone. One had gone home and cried, and another had awakened at 3 a.m.; all of us were angry and ashamed that our fellow passengers had not rushed to aid this soldier's family and consequently had forced them to be on public display in their grief. We worried that this indifference to their son's sacrifice added to their sorrow.

It turned out my destination was his hometown, so I was able to learn his name and more. I learned he had been a talented graffiti artist and had married his sweetheart, Hannah, the day before he deployed to Afghanistan. They planned a big wedding with family and friends for after he returned home. I learned how proud he was to become a Marine in January 2009. I learned that he and his fellow Marines liked to give the candy they received from home to Afghan children. In sum, I learned that he was the kind of honorable, patriotic young person we want defending our country and how great our loss is that he had to give his life in doing so.

I posted a message to his family on the online condolence book. I told them I was sorry for what they went through in trying to see their son's body home, but because of it, many more people were going to have heard of Justin and his dedication to his country: I was going to tell everyone I knew about what I had witnessed and tell them his name. And I have.

I thought that was enough, until I received a thank-you note from Lance Cpl. Wilson's father-in-law.It was a completely humbling experience; he wrote that he was glad I had been able to learn about Justin, and he wanted me to know that Justin "served knowing the risks, but felt it was his obligation and privilege to serve his country." At that moment, I realized that in this day of an all-volunteer military and a distant war that touches so few of our lives directly, more people should hear the story of Lance Cpl. Wilson and his family.

I've thought a lot about what happened that day in the airport, and I choose to believe my fellow passengers were not unfeeling in the face of a soldier's death and a family's tragedy. They were just caught off guard - they were totally unprepared to confront the fierce consequences of the war in Afghanistan on their way to Palm Beach on a sunny afternoon.And I believe it was for this reason that people did not rush to the podium to volunteer their seats. It was not that they did not want to, and it was not that they did not think it was the right thing to do. Rather, it was because they were busy trying to assimilate this unexpected confrontation with the irrevocable cost of war and to figure out how to fit doing the right thing into their plans - to fit it into their lives not previously touched by this war. In the end, enough of us figured out how to do the right thing, and it turned out as well as such a painful situation could.

But still I wonder: Barring some momentous personal event that necessitated a seat on that flight, how could any of us even have hesitated? How could we have stopped to weigh any inconvenience to our plans against the sacrifice Lance Cpl. Wilson and his family had made for our country? In such circumstances, it is not a question of recognizing the right thing to do; we should know it is the only thing to do.

From what I have learned of him, in his short life, Lance Cpl. Wilson created a legacy of courage and patriotism that will not be forgotten by those who knew him. I hope there's a greater legacy as well. I hope through this account of his family's struggle to see him home, if ever again the war intrudes unbidden on my life or yours, we will know what we must do, and in their honor, and for all those who serve and sacrifice, we will do it.

Semper Fi Marine

Put Your Cash In A Mattress

JOHNSON: Violating privacy one bank account at a time
Democrats want to pay the feds to watch every penny you spend

Sen. Christopher Dodd's "regulatory reform" bill, S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, has many contentious proposals that have members from both political parties on edge.

The bill cauterizes "too big to fail" by establishing a Financial Stability Oversight Council that would indentify politically important institutions, sending the signal that some companies are indeed too big to fail.

It creates a permanent bailout authority by authorizing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to "make available ... funds for the orderly liquidation of covered financial institutions."

snip/

However, one specific component that would make George Orwell say, "I told you so," is the establishment of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). If the name of the agency is not enough to conjure up images of black helicopters, the description will certainly do the trick.

Established in Title 10, this new autonomous agency will be sheltered within the Federal Reserve, but will function independent of the currently established, traditional regulatory framework. Congress or any other agency will have no veto power over the BCFP.

This new agency's budget will be 12 percent of the 2009 Federal Reserve System operating budget, or approximately $646 million. In 2008, the Federal Reserve's operating budget was $2.5 billion but it increased $600 million to $3.1 billion for 2009. The 2009 budget baseline was used because it was the most inflated baseline in recent history. Rather than trimming the fat like many state budgets are forced to do in the current economic crisis, Mr. Dodd used the most inflated budget baseline
he could find to fund this agency.

This bureau is given the unprecedented authority to monitor personal bank transactions and uses personal financial data to regulate consumer choice.

Established in Section 1022 on Page 1028, the BCFP is given the authority to monitor consumer financial patterns and, "implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law." Specifically, Subsection C gives this agency authority to
"gather information and activities of persons operating in consumer financial markets."

Further, Section 1071 allows the BCFP to "use the data on branches and [individual and personal] deposit accounts" and "shall assess the distribution of residential and commercial accounts at such financial institution across income and minority level of census tracts; and may use the data for any other purpose as permitted by law." Never before has the federal government actively sought to aggregate data on every single personal and business financial transaction in the U.S. until now.

Things That Make You Go - HUH!?!?!?!

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and
other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape. The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal
immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

More here

An American citizen attempts to protect his personal property from foreign nationals who are trespassing illegally and he gets sued for violating THEIR civil rights?

Anyone else see anything remotely insane about this?

Net Nannies from 1984

EDITORIAL: Obama's Internet nanny
FCC regulations not needed to 'protect' the Web

The FCC, a New Deal relic, derives its current authority from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At the time the law was enacted, Congress wisely decided to take a hands-off approach to the Internet by creating a new "information service" category explicitly designed to remain free from the tangle of red tape that the agency layers on top of telephone service, cable, broadcast television and radio.

[FCC Chairman] Mr. Genachowski, however, is upset that this plain reading of the statute deprives him of the authority to "safeguard privacy," "empower consumers" and "lower the costs of investment." He seeks to remedy this by imposing new rules on the Internet's network infrastructure. In a rather Orwellian fashion, he claims these regulations would not involve regulating the Internet itself. Mr. Genachowski insists that he has no intention of meddling with online content.

Even if that's true, his proposal remains deeply troubling. If a federal agency is allowed to ignore court rulings and erase laws with which it disagrees, there would be no restraint on what a future chairman might do. Surely, if the federal government can provide a "good reason" to reclassify broadband services as telecommunications, it can come up with a "good reason" to prevent such bad language on the Internet or even extend its reclassifications to cover cable television programs on HBO and Showtime.

Absent legal constraints, the agency could even resurrect the Fairness Doctrine and apply it to the Internet. This rule, created during the 1940s, required that broadcast stations give equal time to both sides of controversial issues, but it had the unintended consequence of discouraging stations from discussing anything controversial. The scheme was ultimately canceled by President Reagan's FCC in 1987, a move that ushered in a revival of talk radio.

Neither President Obama nor his appointees have the authority to unilaterally rewrite the law when it suits their convenience. If Mr. Obama wants to impose controls on the Internet, he must go to Congress and ask for the new power - a request not likely to be granted. Members of Congress and the general public appreciate that the Internet's greatness lies in its unregulated, Wild West nature. As the FCC opens its proposals to public comment, we hope that readers deliver the clear message that federal "help" is neither needed nor desired online.

Its Easy To Blame the Rich Guys

PRUDEN: Calling in the clowns to reform Wall Street

It's easy to beat up anyone who works for Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street houses. The partners pull down salaries and bonuses that are unimaginably large to most of us; how many Kobe steaks, how many $500-a-bottle French wines can a Wall Street broker consume? How many Manhattan apartments and vacation homes in the South of France can a Goldman Sachs chairman live in? President Obama, ever the nanny, said Wednesday that "at a certain point you've made enough money." He didn't say how much is enough, and who would decide how much is enough, but it's scary to think what Saul Alinsky's disciple might have in mind for all of us.

Mr. Levin and his conspirators in the Senate are trying to make Wall Street in general and Goldman Sachs in particular responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. Investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission have accused Goldman Sachs of selling $150 million worth of instruments backed by worthless mortgages to a German bank without disclosing exactly what the bank was buying.

The senators deduced from that that Goldman Sachs was trying to rig the market in subprime mortgages and thus set off the great meltdown of '08. The law assumes that not every investment banker is a virgin and does not require that Goldman Sachs relieve its institutional customers from their common-sense duty to know what they're buying. You could argue that what Goldman Sachs and other investment houses are doing is not nice, but it's not against the law. Carl Levin could work to fix that, but screeds are more fun.

There is more at the link. You should go read the whole thing.

New Products for Your Home-Endorsed by the EPA and DOE

A gasoline powered alarm clock and a space heater with a feather duster and fly paper. You can't make this stuff up.

EDITORIAL: Close enough for government work
The EPA and Energy Department are caught fudging efficiency ratings

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy are charged with identifying how energy-efficient different products are. They claim that 98 percent of the products they test meet or exceed Energy Star requirements, which are government benchmarks used to regulate greater efficiency. Yet a sting by GAO investigators showed that the government agencies incorrectly identified as "efficient" 15 of 20 bogus products submitted by GAO for testing. No action was taken on two of the 20 products. Overall, the government made the correct decision on 11 percent of the test products.

As the Washington saying forewarns, the difference between 98 percent and 11 percent is close enough for government work.

Most disturbingly, the absurd products in question shouldn't have been close calls. Take the so-called "room air cleaner." The product was a space heater with a duster sticking out of the top and several fly strips attached. The picture submitted to the government of the bogus product is pretty hilarious - but the bureaucracy gave the contraption the federal stamp of approval.

Among the other ridiculous items the government certified as energy-efficient was a petroleum-powered timepiece that was described as a "generator-sized clock run on gasoline." Such a machine obviously would be energy-inefficient. Moving the heavy beast alone would keep greens awake at night worrying about wasted energy, making the alarm on the clock superfluous.

News of these phony approvals has bureaucrats running for high ground. While defensively insisting that they take the tests "seriously," the EPA and Energy Department immediately issued a statement defending their testing and telling the public it should not lose confidence in the government program to monitor efficiency ratings. Incorrigibly, the feds again pointed to their own discredited 98 percent accuracy rate and implausibly claimed the Energy Star program has so far saved Americans $17 billion on their electricity bills.

They Never Give Away Anything

PYLE: Oil drilling head fake
Obama didn't open land for energy production, he closed it

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress imposed a moratorium on the safe and environmentally sound practice of offshore oil and natural-gas exploration. In the early 1990s, President George H.W. Bush imposed a similar ban in the form of an executive order. And while this ban was in place for decades, many in Congress and the public at large had no idea that the United States was the only country in the industrialized world purposely embargoing its own energy resources.

Fast-forward to the summer of 2008: Oil was $150 a barrel, the price at the pump exceeded $4 a gallon, and the American people - of all political stripes - were genuinely outraged. In response, the Democrat-controlled Congress and President George W. Bush retired both the congressional and executive bans on offshore oil and natural-gas production.

That move effectively opened nearly the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for responsible energy production.

Now fast-forward to March 2010: President Obama announced that he, for the first time, is opening new lands in the OCS for energy exploration. You might be scratching your head at this point, because many energy-industry leaders, newspaper reporters, cable news pundits, lawmakers and politicos applauded the president's announcement as some major policy breakthrough and the White House's willingness to compromise on energy policy. However, the announcement, along with the president's sudden eagerness to trade his proposed national energy tax for increased oil and natural-gas drilling, is nothing more than political theater.

Read the rest at the Washington Times.

Always be wary when your opponent seems to be conceding anything. Its usually a good indicator they have something else planned.

The Girl Scout Sex Guide

Do you have a daughter interested in the Girl Scouts?

Have you been involved with the Girl Scouts in the past?

Then you need to read this report about The Girl Scout Sex Guide.


This is not your Mother's Girl Scouts.

And no. This is NOT an April Fool's joke.