The Porkulus Package

The trillion dollar economic stimulus bill passed in the House, but every Republican voted against it.  Eleven Democrats joined the Republicans in opposing the bill. Hopefully Senate Republicans will be just as strong.

There are several reasons for Republicans to continue take a firm stand:

1. Principle: This "stimulus" package is a scam. It will do little to help the economy. It will do much to help special interest groups. It is immoral to spend colossal quantities of cash for such dubious purposes, and to put the responsibility for paying for it on the shoulders of future generations.
   
2. With massive spending comes massive inflation. There are better strategies for stimulating the economy, e.g., cuts in capital gains taxes.
   
3. If the economy bounces back soon, the Democrats will take credit no matter how the Republicans vote.
   
4. If the economy continues to flounder, Democrats and the MSM will blame George Bush and the Republicans no matter what the Republicans do.
   
5. Obama says it's his way or the highway.  Call his bluff.  Show the world how bipartisan he really is.
   

Republicans: Don't vote for this bill or for anything that remotely resembles it! Show you have some principles...or at least fake it.  Force the Democrats to stand on the courage of THEIR convictions.

More

Obama Hosts Stimulus Bill Cocktail Party

Obama's Blank Screen Deception

The Bipartisan Alternative to The "Porkulus" Bill 

Update

My senator's response to my letter regarding his vote to confirm Geithner:

Thank you for taking time to contact my office regarding the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be the Secretary of the Treasury Department.  Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

Like you, I am concerned with the serious challenges we are facing in our financial markets, and how they are affecting our overall economy.  The Department of Treasury plays a crucial role in the recovery process of our economy, and I believe it is important that we have a treasury secretary that understands our financial markets. 

There is no question that having a Treasury Secretary nominee with perceived tax issues has been troubling.  For that reason, I have spoken several times to Mr. Geithner, read every word of his testimony and his answers to hundreds of questions from the Finance Committee, and then called him again before the vote to ask him a number of very pointed questions.  He answered those tough questions regarding his tax returns to my satisfaction.  While, like you, my preference would be that we were not in the situation to even have to discuss tax issues with a Treasury Secretary nominee, I also think it is appropriate to give fairly wide latitude to presidents regarding their cabinet selections.  At the end of the day, while the issues surrounding Secretary Geithner's confirmation are very important, after spending a great deal of time exploring the merits of his confirmation, I believe that he does pass the test of being qualified to be the Treasury Secretary.

Thank you again for your letter.  I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me as I serve you in the United States Senate. 

[emphasis mine]

Maybe I should be happy that he didn't really read my letter.

Republican Shame

An open letter to the Republican senators who voted to confirm Geithner as Treasury Secretary:

Your vote to confirm Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary was very disappointing.  As others have said, "this was a perfect moment for Republicans to stand on principle."  But you failed to do so.

In light of Geithner's failure to pay his taxes, it is hard to imagine how he can summon the moral authority to perform his duties as Treasury Secretary.  Even the New York Times understands that "Americans expect the man who’s in charge of the I.R.S. to pay his own taxes."

Despite the fact that many have made the (specious) argument that "he's the right man for the job, no one else can do it, and he's the financial industry's man of the moment", it is hard for me to believe that among 300 million Americans, there is not a single one who is both honest and qualified for the job.

I hope you have a plan to redeem yourself after this unconscionable vote to confirm Timothy Geithner.

Sincerely,

RightKlik

*********************************************************************************

Shame on these cowardly Republican senators for voting to put a tax evader in charge of the I.R.S.

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

Ensign (R-NV)

Graham (R-SC)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hatch (R-UT)

Shelby (R-AL)

Snowe (R-ME)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Obama's useful idiots.  What were they thinking?

*********************************************************************************

More

Enough Happy Talk

The White House Stimulus Meeting

"I thought he once said we are not red states or blue states. We are the United States of America. We are not Republican or Democrat. Look, he won as the man who reaches across. But here is an example in which he says ‘I won, you lost. It’s my way.’ He listens, but unless he gives something, it’s all a sham."

Obama’s Folly

One doesn’t make points at all about bipartisanship by explicitly attacking another partisan voice, no matter how much one disagrees with it.  By naming Rush and attempting to sideline him, Obama lifted Rush’s profile and practically anointed him his opposition.  It demonstrates that Obama still has no sense of his office, nor of “post-partisanship”, regardless of his endlessly empty rhetoric on the subject.

Opposing President Unity

Those who don’t get with the Obama program are going to be in for a rough ride, but if Republicans don’t stand up for conservative principles, they might as well pack their bags and go home.

Spendapalooza

It's taking a long time for this thing to sink in with Americans, but this Obama spending bill is not a stimulus bill. It's nothing more than good old-fashioned Democrat big-government spending on steroids.

The politics of ice cream

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered "ice cream" and fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.

The Incredible Porkiness of the Economic Stimulus Bill (Warning: very graphic)

Final thought: Obama's bipartisanship is a trojan horse.

Obama: "I Will Trump You"

Are you warm and fuzzy for Obama?  If you are, don't read this.  It will burst your bubble.  The bipartisan messiah shows us who he really is.

Delays in Cabinet Nominations Demonstrate GOP Resolve.

No excuse for Geithner

The Audacity Of Dope

Matthews Slams Reporter For Citing Blogs: "Let's Stick To Journalism. I Don't Do That Here."

Geert Wilders, European Islam and Fitna

Hitler Taken Into Custody

Remember 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell?

He’s the little boy whose name was the center of an international firestorm in December after a Greenwich, N.J., supermarket refused to write his name on a birthday cake. The store said it was inappropriate and refused to give an apology after the parents demanded one.

Sgt. John Harris of the Holland Township Police Department has confirned that Adolf Hitler Campbell and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, were taken from their Holland Township, N.J., home on Friday by the state's Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).

Their father, Heath Campbell, is expected in court Thursday in Flemington, N.J., in connection with the case. Kate Bernyk, a spokeswoman for the DYFS, said confidentiality laws barred her from commenting on the case or even confirming that the Campbell children were involved.

"DYFS has their reasons and they normally don’t release any information, so we kind of have to go on faith with them," Harris said. Police were not told what the agency was investigating. "I’ve dealt with the family for years and as far as the children are concerned, I have never had any reports of any abuse with the children," Harris said. "As far as I know, he’s always been very good with the children."

"Just from knowing Mr. Campbell from the past ten or so years, I've never known him to abuse his children and when he has talked about his children he has been very much into his kids. Very loving,” Harris said.

Speaking generally, Bernyk said the state's "decision to remove a child is based on the safety and well being of the child and the risk to that child, and that decision is made in conjunction with the courts and the county family court judge."

Forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill said naming a boy Hitler could be considered child abuse. "Part of it is the infantile nature of the parents’ behavior," Berrill said. "You can name your dog something weird, but they think they’re making some kind of bold statement with the children, not appreciating that the children will have separate lives and will be looked at in a negative light until they’re able to change their name. It is abuse."

If it turns out that the Campbell children were taken from their parents because of their names, it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened. Last year, a New Zealand court removed a 9-year-old girl from her parents in order to change her birth name: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. In that country, officials do not deem a name abusive unless it causes serious bullying.

I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said Tuesday in an interview. "There's a new president and he says it's time for a change; well, then it's time for a change," he continued. "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did."

[Compiled from several news sources.]

I can certainly imagine situations in which action should be taken against parents who make very poor choices in naming a child (for example, if a parent were to give a child a name that included obscene words). But if government is going to get in the business of regulating names, action should be taken at the time when the parents choose the name, i.e., when the child is a newborn. Waiting until a child is 3 years old to address the problem is stupid. Taking the child away is irresponsible and subjects the child to psychological trauma that amounts to child abuse.

Another point: regulating baby names puts us on a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? What if someone names their child Stalin Campbell? How about Pol Pot Campbell or Kim Jong-il Campbell? Would Ahmadinejad Campbell be okay?

Update:

Adolf Hitler Campbell custody hearing postponed

More

Tim Geithner! How does a guy on the fast track to be Treasury secretary fail to pay $34,000 worth of federal taxes? Americans expect the man who’s in charge of the I.R.S. to pay his own taxes. Maureen Dowd has managed to make a legitmate point! Don't get excited, the rest of the article is disappointing.

Parents get serious about baby names in tough year.

CU's College Democrats oppose hiring of right-wing prof.

Obama inauguration to air in theaters

Man sells 14-year-old daughter into marriage for beer.

Skeptical of Obama's Stimulus Plan.

Our media (along with academia and the popular culture) have constructed an all-encompassing faux reality that cannot truly be understood unless you step outside of it.