The Victorious Opposition

I can’t believe I missed this:

Mueller told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee he hopes that the reauthorization of two provisions would be far less controversial than in previous years. One of those provisions, which helps authorities secure access to business records, “has been exceptionally helpful in our national security investigations,” he said.

In response to a question from Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), Mueller said that his agents had used the provision about 220 times between 2004 and 2007. Data for last year were not yet available, he said.

The measure allows investigators probing terrorism to seek a suspect’s records from third parties such as financial services and travel and telephone companies without notifying the suspect. The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the provision, saying it violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Senator Obama was ripped by Kos for his vote on FISA and I believe that the Administration and Congress will renew this part of the PATRIOT Act as well.  Naturally, the Kos Kreeps are already turning on the heat, although they’re blaming Mueller instead of Obama; apparently not aware that the FBI answers to the White House, not the Crawford Ranch.

Consider this a Fall preview of an exciting epic miniseries to come.

Washington Post

The liberal path as always been paved with good intentions (that, and the path to Hell), making us all more honest, more caring (funny, but productive and industrious is not an attribute worthy of mentioning) is always the stated goal, that random act of kindness and senseless beauty thing, but who would of thought that dispensing badges of honor, making that which decency and decorum demands for everybody, for expected behavior would become fashionable? In NPR land, gold stars are awarded for anything.

Let’s all of us citizens take a vow to not steal for one whole day. We already have a Smoke-Free Day, a Secretary’s Day, a Mother’s Day, a Grandmother’s Day and Valentine’s Day. Let’s have one more holiday: a Don’t Steal Anything Day. The benefits will be immediate: There will be bumper stickers that read, “I didn’t Steal Anything Today.” The Hallmark cards will have their usual holiday bumper crop and, best of all, the huge flow of unfilched cash will send the economy soaring.

Well, at least they are thinking about our economy, we subtract one smack for good intentions.

Much like the “Earth Hour” post, every drop accumulated can eventually add up. OK, so one day out of the year I will do the right thing. I wonder if this will take much effort from the left leaning crowd, since this message is primarily targeted at them, can we assume then that their side is responsible for most of the transgressions in this area? No, I wouldn’t go there. Could it be that libs in general find proper conduct so rare that calling attention to any display of decency and honor would shame the rest of them into doing good, I think we are getting closer. Could it be that living a moral life where propriety and honor is the catalyst for all actions is so rare that any effort in this area, from anyone, deserves platitudes with marching band in tandem? Closer still. Or, does the NPR crowd have such a low opinion of humanity in general, that they believe the hoi polloi need to be tricked, manipulated, or coerced into actions normal people would consider rudimentary? I think we have a winner.

Working this vein to its natural progression, I say we have a “Only think good thoughts” day, a “Don’t beat your kids” day, a “Don’t speak ill of people” day, a “Don’t kick the dog” day, and a “Pay your taxes” day, this last one is aimed at the Obama administration, who needs some special coxing.

And, as a special benefit, the government could shut down for the day, what would be the point of working on a “no theft” day?,  they certainly could use more time off.

In keeping with Obama’s vision of a civilian national security force:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

They could institute the practice of merit badges, like the boy scouts, with a “I did not steal for one whole day” badge prominently displayed next to the “I worked for one whole day” and “I paid my rent for one whole day” badges.

Those people need some cool badges.

This is one of the clearest views into the thought process of a socialist that I’ve seen in a while:

Struggling newspapers should be allowed to operate as nonprofits similar to public broadcasting stations, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed Tuesday.

Cardin introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to choose tax-exempt status. They would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible.

Here’s the killer statement:

“We are losing our newspaper industry,” said Cardin. “The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.”

Umm, excuse me? If the business model is broken, you do one of two things:

• You change your business model
• You go the way of the dodo

What you do not do is get on the government dole to keep your failing business from failing.

You could argue that going non-profit is a new business model, and I might even be receptive to that concept - were it not for the existence of this newfangled invention of that great Democratic leader Al Gore, the Interwebz. PBS was important back in the day when TV was a scarce medium with significant barriers to entry. It’s not clear that PBS would be a business model we’d want to create today, given cable, DBS, the Internet, etc.

The Wall Street Journal gets people to pay for access. It’s the exception, not the rule. But it shows you can take a classic business model online if your content is sufficiently valuable. And if your content isn’t sufficiently valuable? Find a new model, find more valuable content, or go away.

Sure, many old-timers feel the loss of the daily paper. Get over it.

It’s 4:30pm on a Tuesday. In your drunken fog, you find yourself shackled by police, a turkey baster filled with semen is in your hand. You have now entered the “VO-Zone”:

Pittsfield, Massachusetts (The Weekly Vice)—Stephanie K. Lighten, a 26-year-old Pittsfield woman was arrested Tuesday after she allegedly attempted to use a syringe to inseminate her wife with brother’s sperm.

According to Pittsburg police, officer’s were called to the women’s apartment at about 4:30 p.m. on a complaint of a domestic assault. When they arrived, alleged victim Jennifer Lighten told investigators that she had been attacked by her wife, Stephanie.

Jennifer told authorities that Stephanie had come home “all liquored up” and tried to use a syringe to artificially inseminate her, according to the arrest report.

She told investigators that Stephanie had a “turkey baster” and her brother’s semen with plans to to impregnate her with it. When Jennifer refused, Stephanie allegedly threw her onto the couch and threatened to impregnate her with it herself.

After breaking free, Jennifer reportedly went to the bathroom and locked the door, however Stephanie “broke the bathroom door down hurting [Jennifer’s] wrists” according to the police report.

Jennifer then reportedly ran out of the apartment and attempted to flee in the couple’s sport utility vehicle. As the vehicle pulled away, Stephanie caught up and attempted to enter the vehicle, nearly causing an accident.

After police caught up to the brawling pair, they took Stephanie Lightner into custody. Police also confiscated the syringe and a container of semen belonging to Nicholas Lighten.

Whew!  That’s one hell of a lot of story to “gobble” up. A sauced up bull dyke, a turkey baster filled with her brother’s semen (don’t even want to know how she approached that one), a battered spouse who barely escapes the throws of a violent rape, and an arrest and confiscation of semen filled turkey baster.

Now, think about how that story would have ended if the violator was a man. Equality, folks.

I’ve commented on this before in various immigration discussions, but I just saw it again in a Constitutional Law paper I was reading, and felt like saying something about it.

I am really sick of the “undocumented immigrant/worker” euphemism. To use a not-currently-politically-correct euphemism to make my point about an annoying euphemism - let’s call a spade a spade. They are here illegally. They didn’t lose their papers somewhere. No one forgot to write their name on a ledger when they came across the border. There is no issue of missing documentation. Except the documentation that they are supposed to have to come here/work here without breaking the law.

I’m not an immigrant-bashing protectionist; I have no issues with legal immigration. And I hate the vigilantism of some of the Minuteman-styled groups. But please. If you want to have a serious discussion about immigration and the legal status of immigrants, you can’t keep talking about “undocumented”. It just defeats your entire argument and makes you look/sound stupid.

Even Wikipedia gets it right - go type “undocumented immigrant” into the Wikipedia search box. It takes you to the page titled “Illegal Immigration”.

On the drive in this morning, I was listening to NPR. I listen to them now mostly because our talk station 97.1FM has cancelled all talk radio contracts and gone to t a top 40 format (thank you, CBS). I know what you’re thinking, listening to NPR makes you half a fag, and I feel the same way, but trust me when I say I am desperate to find something that’s NOT top 40 music. So, I listen to what I call the “liberal screech” on the way into work. The slant of it is so readily apparent, I often wonder if it’s tongue in cheek, and it’s actually pretty humorous to listen to some emasculated man talk about the perils of male lactation, sensitivity to the Carrier Pigeon’s fragile urban ecosystem, and the virtuous Obama administration’s raining of Mana onto the masses.

Today, the moans and bitches centered around a movie, called Crossing Over, and I instantly knew why this reviewer had a bad case of sore ass. Take a look at the plot:

Crossing Over is a multi-character canvas about immigrants of different nationalities struggling to achieve legal status in Los Angeles. The film deals with the border, document fraud, the asylum and green card process, work-site enforcement, naturalization, the office of counter terrorism and the clash of cultures.

Is it any wonder that the crowd who denied Mickey Rourke his Oscar for “The Wrestler” in favor of Sean Penn going full retard in “Milk” would have a problem with a movie focused on the perils of illegal immigration? I mean, this guy really had a problem with the movie, and it was spelled out very clearly in his effeminate screed. He had a major issue with how what he considered a “mundane” issue, could be so sensationalized.

Someone, please give this guy a tissue, because this will be the ONLY movie I see this year, if I only see one. I encourage all of you to do the same, pretty please. Suck it, NPR.

Update:

I found the movie review for you, here.

Remember Crash, the blunt Oscar-winning film about racism? The one with lots of intertwined stories? The makers of Crossing Over sure do - but it’s not a happy memory.

No, Crossing Over will make you weep, and not for the reasons its makers intended. This heavy-handed, fake-serious film offers crass manipulation in the spot where honesty is supposed to be.

Director Wayne Kramer would seem to be convinced that his film has got something to say about the problems of immigration, but in fact Crossing Over just uses that issue as an excuse to put thuggish violence, lecherous nudity and crude profanity on screen.

See what I mean? What total horse shit, and I guarantee you that this guy can be seen cruising around in a pink Prius with a “Coexist” bumper sticker.

I’ve previously written about the case of a Florida gay couple denied adoption of a child they’ve fostered for literally years, on the sole basis that they are gay. A Florida superior court judge ruled the law unconstitutional on equal-protection grounds. As expected, the state has appealed.

Now the Florida Bar Association has filed a friend-of-the-court briefing in that case, on behalf of its membership, in favor of overturning the law. This is wrong. The Bar Association is a professional organization representing the interests of attorneys - some of whom agree with the decision, and some of whom don’t. There is no context in which the Bar Association should be weighing in on issues other than those associated with the regulation of the legal profession.

You will very rarely find me referencing right-wing sources (PDF file), but this is so black and white that it’s appropriate in this case:

As the Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, I am writing to you on behalf of myself, the Florida Bar members of our public interest law firm listed below, and the many Florida Bar affiliate attorneys of Liberty Counsel. Speaking on behalf of these many attorneys, we were shocked by the actions of the Board of Governors’ vote approving the Family Law Section’s request to file an amicus brief supporting the invalidation of Florida Stat. §63.042(3), which excludes practicing homosexuals from adopting Florida’s children. This action by the Board of Governors violates our First Amendment rights and the First Amendment rights of hundreds of other bar members, and we ask that the Board immediately rescind the action.

As you are no doubt aware, the United States Supreme Court has determined that mandatory integrated bars, such as the Florida Bar, cannot use members’ dues to support ideological causes which are not germane to the goals of regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services. Keller v. State Bar of California 496 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1990). We understand that Board members have attempted to justify their action under Keller by maintaining that the vote was not to directly support invalidation of the statute but to permit a voluntary section of the Bar to support invalidation. We understand that Board members have stated after the fact that no members’ dues will be used to prepare the brief and that the sponsor of the brief will be the Family Law Section, a voluntary organization, instead of the integrated bar. This is a distinction without a constitutional difference.

...

The Board of Governors’ vote was an impermissible attempt to circumvent Keller in order to pursue a divisive political agenda. The Florida Bar should attend itself to only matters that are of general concern and need for Florida attorneys. The Florida Bar has no business injecting itself into these controversial and politically divisive topics. The action violates our First Amendment rights, and we request that the Board rescind its action. We want peace with the Florida Bar and do not want to be placed in an adversarial position. However, we are serious about our First Amendment rights and the proper role of the Bar in respecting those rights. We therefore ask that the Board of Governors immediately rescind its vote and remove the Florida Bar from this political issue. Since the upcoming dates for the filing of amicus briefs is fast approaching, we expect the Florida Bar to rescind its vote and refrain from taking sides in this issue. We look forward to hearing from the Florida Bar prior to the time the amicus brief is due.

If the attorneys that make up the Governors of the State Bar wanted to file a friend-of-the-court brief on this issue, that would be completely appropriate, as the Liberty Council’s lawyers will be doing. For them to do so in the name of the Bar Association, however, is an abuse of their authority, and potentially of their fiduciary responsibility as well, given the ramifications if the Bar Association were to lose its authority (statutory or moral) to regulate the legal profession in Florida.

There’s no ambiguity in my position on this issue - I believe the law is clearly unconstitutional and should be struck down. But it should be done the right way, through proper use of the adversarial system. This abuse of the public and professional trust is, however, extremely disturbing, and so I felt I needed to bring this to light, too.

Is it just me, or is CNN not necessarily liberal, but rather, confrontational to power? The set of editorials they’ve been running so far certainly seem to lead me to feel that they’re more interested in being provocative than liberal. It would be nice. Of course, I recall some very-left-wingers complaining about CNN being a conservative bastion before the election (that one almost made me spew soda on my monitor when I read it). Anyhow, today they’re taking Pelosi to task in no uncertain terms: You can blame Pelosi for Democrats’ stumbles

Well, that didn’t take long. Three weeks into the new administration and the Democrats are squandering their advantage and threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Credit House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for getting the ball rolling. Under her leadership, House Democrats excluded Republicans from having any voice in crafting the stimulus package.

Acting like children who hadn’t seen Santa Claus for eight years, House Democrats busily loaded up the bill with stuff they had been unable to get for eight years. It was payback time.

Contraception, funding for the arts, restoration of the national mall, stop-smoking programs. All while Americans lose their homes, their jobs, and their savings. It was both childish and disgraceful.

Agreed. The House bill is replete with trash, which is why we were commenting just yesterday that the reconciled legislation is likely to be quite larger than either the House or Senate versions.

Not content in destroying the automotive industry, Michigans feel the need to bite conservative entertainers.

Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told radio host Bill Press this week that she thought there needs to be more balance in broadcasting and suggested there would be hearings in the Senate during this Congress on possibly reinstating the fairness doctrine.

She was responding to the news that a liberal radio station in Washington had closed and as part of a discussion about the dwindling number of those stations in the face of the popularity of conservative talk radio.

Asked whether it was time to bring back the fairness doctrine, she said “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else.”

She tied it to President Barack Obama’s pledge of more accountability and transparency, saying “I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”

Press asked her whether she could be counted on to push for hearings and she answered: “I have already had discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen, yep.”

The re-imposition of the doctrine has been of concern to Republicans and talk radio hosts after statements like Stabenow’s by other legislators in the run-up to the election of a Democratic president and Congress.

“More accountability and transparency”? must mean “Don’t see us as we fuck you over with our intentions”.  If you don’t like a dissenting voice to your opinion, simply ban it. It’s worked so well in the past. I’d also like to add that conservative talk radio wouldn’t be so popular if liberals weren’t gagging on the failure that is them trying to run things.

I have no faith in people, if they elect a president they know nothing about, and then complain that their greatest fear is Rush Limbaugh. I have even less faith after they then want to ban his voice, for fear that he might stir thought. Republicans were afraid of seeing tits, but Democrats are afraid of hearing criticism. So much so that they are willing to censor it. Perhaps there really should be a litmus test to vote.

Gee, what a so-much-better situation we’re in.

If Tom Daschle had his way, Tom Daschle would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for failing to pay his taxes.

At least according to the old Tom Daschle, who gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor about the scourge of tax scofflaws.

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter,” the former Senate Majority Leader said in 1998 during a debate on a bill reforming the Internal Revenue Service.

The usual observations about those Democrats who are always belly-aching that “the rich” don’t pay “their fair share” while simultaneously dodging taxes every way they can apply.

Video at the link.

Washington Times

The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday and reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.

Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday’s scheduled Senate hearing on Panetta’s nomination.

Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated October 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated October 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.

The former White House chief of staff’s disclosure form also shows the delicate balance President Barack Obama is trying to strike—trying to curb the influence of lobbyists in his administration, while relying on long-time Washington veterans who often help clients navigate the halls of power. Panetta’s forms show that he performed government affairs consulting last year and also sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress, though Panetta doesn’t violate Obama’s ban on hiring registered lobbyists.

Granted, Panetta did not work for any business that would benefit by his placement in the CIA, but it just goes to show that once again; the ridiculously high standards that Obama has promised combined with his enthusiasm for hiring Clinton retreads is going to result in another black eye.  Needless to say, I’m not terribly excited about the prospect of a CIA Director with a strong reputation for advising enterprises right into the ground.

The CIA doesn’t have the options of a government bailout or buyout by competitors to solve all of its problems.  When it screws up, the consequences are severe and result in deaths.

Fox News

I’ve been blogging before about my effort to ride my bike to work, and my commitment to “going green” for a little while now. This entails riding my bike to work, and while I’ve been doing that I mentioned the amount of transients that litter my 15 mile path. I have my bike in my backseat of my car today, in order to get a couple of repairs done and get myself back to riding again but I came across this story which illustrates how pervasive this homeless problem is on this path.

VAN NUYS - Vinnie Niland walks along the Metro Orange Line bike path scouring the bushes for chucked cans and bottles.

But if there’s one thing the recently homeless man can’t stand, it’s the other garbage, homeless camps and drinking hideaways that line the 14-mile bikeway.

“They just trash the place,” said Niland, 46, who had walked the bus route for years before becoming homeless two months ago after being laid off from his job as an auto parts clerk. “It’s becoming a dump.

“I love this bike path. I would like to see ‘em come out here and do something about it.”

Niland is not alone. Police, civic activists, cyclists and pedestrians all want to reverse the growing blight along the four-year-old bikeway.

The Orange Line busway opened in October 2005 as a dedicated transit route between North Hollywood and Woodland Hills. The $350 million line, which included the bike path, was flanked by 800,000 exotic plants.

But as Los Angeles County volunteers completed the largest homeless count in the nation last week, many pointed out the trail of refuse left by transients between Sepulveda Boulevard and Hazeltine Avenue and beyond.

A warren of sleeping holes littered with soggy clothes, weathered blankets, excrement and condoms dot chest-high brush along the path.

In plain view lay a mattress and 50 feet of trash where some say homeless immigrants like to party after finishing their day-labor jobs.

Plastic bags and other refuse line the trans-San Fernando Valley route. In spots, weeds eat up the pedestrian portion of the path.

“For the past few years, we’ve been trying to take care of the issue of the homeless and all their stuff. It’s an uphill battle,” said Zach Behrens, 28, of Sherman Oaks, editor of LAist.com, who on his blog last week called attention to the detritus.

Behrens also serves on a police committee on transients looking into cleaning up the bikeway and opening a check-in facility for homeless belongings.

“The problem is, we were never able to accomplish anything,” he said, “because it was a monumental task.”

This summarization is pretty much my view of things, as well. I start on my path in Van Nuys and end up in Burbank where I work. Along that path are a plethora of bums, illegal aliens, winos, and scalleywags that call the Metro bike path’s shrubbery home. It’s actually pretty a pretty dangerous ride between damn near getting run over by oblivious drivers, and worrying about getting shanked by a drunken bum along the way. I ride both directions pretty much in the dark, so it can get down right ugly sometimes.

Los Angeles police Officer Tony Cabunoc, a senior lead officer at Van Nuys Division and a member of its Transient Committee, said: “We have homeless and transient encampments in the landscape areas and they’re there 24-7. Our concern is the safety of the bike path and those who use it.”

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation administers the bikeway and maintains it under contract with a private firm. An LADOT spokesman referred questions about bikeway blight to Paul Meshkin, head of the department’s Bikeways Engineering Group, who did not return calls Friday.

“The Orange Line is (devoid) of any leadership to execute the basic support we pay for,” said Stephen Box, a bicyclist activist who has peddled the bikeway en route to jobs in Woodland Hills and Chatsworth.

“It needs to be a safe, clean and effective bike path.”

Niland walked the bikeway Thursday along an industrial swath of Van Nuys, eyeballing encampments he says are used primarily by Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants.(Emphasis - mine)

In the past year, he’s seen many city graffiti-removal crews, but not one to clear the trash or trim the weeds.

“This has been back here for a while, for about a year,” he said. “I’ve seen bike cops ride through here, but they don’t do anything about it. They just go right by.

“Nothin’ seems to get done.”

I seriously had to have a chuckle after reading the part that I put in bold, because it illustrates everything that is wrong with the liberal mindset, and the delicious irony of a conservative leaning person trying to advance a typically liberal agenda meeting peril at the hands of yet another liberal agenda. The sacred cow of liberals, the illegal immigrant. I can tell you first hand that this homeless problem is an extension of illegal immigration, and I could write for months following these bums from a mattress on the Orange Line to construction sites, Uhaul rentals, and Home Depots all over the San Fernando Valley.

With a majority Latino population in Van Nuys, the people will, no doubt shoot down any measure to rid ourselves of illegal immigrants and see just how many other problems clear up from the process. this isn’t a case of Skid Row being emptied from the downtown area, or a comment on the economy, but a crosshair placed right on the fact that a majority of this epidemic is due to illegal aliens and havoc they wreak on the city. For anyone else, like myself, who is trying to dovetail nicely with rich liberals and make the world a better place by ditching the car for a bike, a dilemma has arisen with two sacred cows conflicting with one another.

The piss lined avenue to a greener tomorrow needs a little cleaning, so this will undoubtedly force a decision in these hard times. Does a city on the verge of bankruptcy try to squeeze in a bloated task force of cleaning crews, an Orange line Czar, and an entire government arm as a sort of bum maid service, or will they decide that the source of the problem is that scumbags from other countries who come here illegally need to be fleeced from our society? I’ll keep you posted, but the spirit of the article already should let you know what we’re leaning towards. 

*sigh*

Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak told CNN’s Rick Sanchez that the US has an “obligation” to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“We have clear evidence,” he said. “In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, ‘Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.’ So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture.”

Asked during an interview with Germany’s ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: “I think the evidence is on the table.”

At issue, however, is whether “American law will recognize these forms of torture.”

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

This video is from CNN’s Newsroom, broadcast Jan. 26, 2009.

Meanwhile, in Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is polishing the tip of a nuclear missile.

The link on the ABC homepage was “The Boehner (pronounced Bay-ner) of Obama’s Existence”.  Clever.

“We’re looking forward to the president coming today and having a dialogue with us about how we can have an economic recovery package that works for America,” (Boehner) told reporters. “We have concerns that the plan House Democrats are going to bring to the floor will not work.  And at the end of the day, I think what our big moves will be today are to ask the president to help us.  Help us make this plan better so that it will put Americans back to work. 

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told Republicans that the $825 billion House version of the bill should not be supported by Republicans, unless major changes are made. 

A Boehner press aide told ABC News: “While we certainly appreciate the willingness of the President to come to Capitol Hill, the problem remains with Congressional Democrats who are moving forward with little regard toward improving the bill.  Unless the Speaker agrees to make changes, then congressional Democrats should not count on our support.”

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., joined Boehner in urging Republicans to vote “no” on the stimulus package.

...

Writing to ABC News from inside the caucus that just wrapped up, this lawmaker says, “The question Republicans are asking is this: “Does the President support everything in the House bill? Contraceptives to ‘stimulate’? Re-sodding the National Mall? NEA [National Endowment for the Arts] funding to lift economy?”

This legislator says the wide spread belief is that Republican support for this bill dwindled after Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s exclusive appearance on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”.

Of course Pelosi would throw a monkey wrench into it.  Again.  Remember this one?

Opponents said part of the reason for the opposition from Republicans was what they termed a partisan speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said one GOP source. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he thinks Republicans could have provided a dozen more votes had Pelosi not given her speech.

Pelosi had said that Congress needed to pass the bill, even though it was an outgrowth of the “failed economic policies” of the last eight years.

Even though the House Republicans did right in stopping that bill, they later sold out.  Will history repeat itself so soon?  Probably.  A stimulus package will go through, but I would like to see it cut to the bone (or “to the Boehner”).  Unfortunately, it may again turn out to be a matter of how much it takes to bribe the dissenters with more pork.

ABC News

Breaking:

Decision Attributed to Concerns Over Uncle’s Health

Caroline Kennedy told Gov. David Paterson that she no longer wanted to be considered for the New York Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a person who was told of her decision.

I’m glad she found an honorable reason to get out.  Her selection would have been an embarrassment.

New York Times