Dear Friends

I am afraid I will be away from my blog for a little while. My beloved mother passed away Saturday morning, Jan. 30th. Sadly, we were not able to be there with her. We were headed up to see her, but weather forced us to postpone our departure. Still, we would not have made it in time ... Fortunately, though, my middle brother and his wife, who have been incredibly faithful to my mother since her stroke back in May, were with her when she passed.

Mom was 79 1/2 years old, had survived a liver transplant over 20 years ago, plus the five children she bore. That was no small feat I tell you - we could be quite the handful. She was gracious, generous, thoughtful, loving, kind, and funny. She was a mother to many, not just her blood children. My friends came to see Mom as much as they came to see me - she was that kind of person. She loved to read, she loved her animals, she loved to watch the birds come to the birdfeeders, and she loved to garden, though later in life, she had to leave the actual digging and all to those younger than she. I don't think Mom ever knew a stranger, even the checkout people in the grocery store knew her. She genuinely cared about everyone, and opened her heart to them.

To say I will miss my mother is a tremendous understatement. All who knew her will miss her, her infections laugh, and her spirit. But not only am I sad that I have lost my mother, but I am sad for the dreams she had that will forever go unfulfilled. Whether through illness (hers or my dad's, who predeceased her by four and a half years), age, or time, there were so many things she never got to do. I suppose she can travel all she wishes now, or paint as much as she desires...

I will be back soon, friends. Until then, I suggest you tell those you love that you love them, and those with whom you want to spend time, make the time to do so. Life is fleeting, but love, love lasts...

Mom, I will love you always. Thank you for all you have done for me, all you have taught me, all you have given me, for the very life beating within. I will miss you more than I can say...

Constitutional Scholar? Really?

Because Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in his SOTU:



It is hard to believe the above isn't a skit from SNL, too. Holy smokes.Huh, I guess not being able to see those transcripts and stuff is kind of important AFTER all.

And just for the hell of it, I have to share this little story with you about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Taxpayers Pay $101,000 for Pelosi's In-Flight 'Food, Booze' . I'm sure that's in the Constitution, or the Declaration, or somewhere, that we should be shelling $1,000 a WEEK for food and booze for the Speaker:

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

"Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. "And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else."

Holy freakin' frijoles, really?? And Obama gets up there mouthing crapola about cutting back? Please. The article continues:

Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her "sense of entitlement," the group said.

"Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline," the evaluation said.

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

Do the tone-deaf lawmakers in D.C. make your blood boil? Read all about Washington and its politics of corruption in "Breach of Trust."

"We have ... folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc," said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi's requests for aircraft.

"Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?" it stated. "[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..."

The e-mail noted that the speaker's office had "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

Just in case you were wondering, it is not FREE to prep these jets for possible use. Um, did Obama proclaim her Queen of the United States or something when we weren't looking?? How full of herself can she possibly be?? Oh, wait, there's more:

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi's demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco's airport.

"She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …"

Said another, "This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker('s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future."

Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:

"Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens."

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi's military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

HOLY SHIT. That is just obscene. Can you see the smoke coming out of my ears? Oh, but wait, there is still more:

Among the newest highlights revealed:

* Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker's family.

* One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, "to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders" included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.

* According to a "Memo for Record" from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, "CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.

Pelosi's office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Maybe Judicial Watch could give Obama some tips on what exactly is in that Constitution, at least so this "scholar" knows the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sounds like Pelosi better sit in, too...

State of The Lobbyists Is Better Than You'd Think After The SOTU

Jon Stewart had Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren on recently to discuss TARP and Wall Street. It was an interesting interview, to be sure (h/t to Pat), and provided a historical perspective:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Elizabeth Warren
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Let's not forget who was in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, shall we?? Barney? Chris? Ahem. Funny how that often goes unmentioned, isn't it?

You wanna know what else is funny about this whole negative attitude toward lobbyists? Especially after Obama ripped on them again? That he INVITED THEM TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A PRIVATE BRIEFING THE DAY AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION. I am not kidding, people - how many different ways can I say, "What a freakin' hypocrite?????" Or, "How do people buy the crap that comes out of his mouth???" Holy smokes!!! Those of us who are sentient beings knew this was happening, that he was saying one thing, while doing another. But, c'mon, how blatant can he be that he thinks we are the biggest bunch of morons on the face of the planet??? And how can so many Americans BE such morons to buy this crap from him? Good grief, people, THINK!!!

So, here it is, in black and white:

[Snip] The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.

The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.” (Emphasis mine.)

Yeah, I'll just bet they aren't:

The calls are scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, with the first topic being job creation and economic growth.

Another call, at 1 p.m., is on government reform and transparency. Republicans have criticized the Obama White House for not being more transparent in its discussions with Congress on healthcare reform. Obama recently acknowledged that the legislative process has not been as open as he promised on the campaign trail.

Other issues that will be addressed on Thursday include education, climate change and healthcare reform.

Oh, yay!! Doesn't that make you feel better? Of course, they have been there all along, steering this Healthcare bill, from Obama's original meeting with Big Pharma to the insurance industry lobbyists. Gee, can' imagine why so many of us oppose this current bill: because we know what actually wrote it.

But Obama better be careful before he hurts their feelings:

A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”

In his State of the Union on Wednesday, Obama once again targeted K Street: “We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”

So, um, this is how Obama expects to fix it? Invite the lobbyists to participate in these major issues facing the country? Well, sure, that makes sense. In the Upside-Down World of Washington, DC, that is.

And all in the light of day, right? Oh, sure, PollyAnna:

The Treasury Department referred The Hill’s request for comment to the White House, which at press time had not responded to questions on this issue.

On Thursday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated in an e-mail, "As part of our effort to reach out and engage with the public and policymakers, it is standard for our outreach team to organize a conference call, so that we can include people who are not in Washington, after a major speech or announcement through the president's priorities. These calls are targeted at a diverse group of community and government leaders including mayors, governors, faith groups, women's organizations, representatives from the African American and Latino communities to share as much information about the administration's agenda as possible. The calls, which include question-and-answer sessions, typically include hundreds of people from across the country..."

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.

For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”

Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.” (Emphasis mine)

And that is why many on K Street are exasperated with Obama’s use of lobbyists as a punching bag. Some have said they understood why he used strong rhetoric on the campaign trail but are irritated the White House solicits their opinions while Obama’s friends in Congress badger them for political donations.

Don't you feel sorry for those poor lobbyists who are shaping our policies?

Or do you feel anger that we have a government that is so duplicitous, so underhanded, so hypocritical, and so conniving?? Obama gets up there spewing this bullshit at the SOTU, and the VERY NEXT DAY, meets with K Street Lobbyists. And he does so with no shame, not even a hint that the impropriety gets through to him.

Wow. Show of hands - WHO bought this crap from him and the Democrats?? Anyone? Bueller?? And we wonder why this country is in such a mess...

The Blame Game, aka ,The SOTU Address, and The Republican Response - **UPDATED**

Yes, Obama laid blame at the feet of just about everyone but himself last night during his SOTU. "The Buck Stops Here" moment was very short-lived, was it not? It's Bush's fault about the banks, even though Senator Obama voted to bail them out; it's the Republicans fault - the minority party - that nothing can get passed in D.C., even though the Democrats had a super-majority, it is everyone's fault but his, for whatever condition the country is in, unless it is something positive, then it is ALL him. Yes, he can walk and chew gum at the same time - woohoo!!! Let's give him a standing ovation!! Lost jobs? Staggering deficit? Home foreclosures?? Nah, that's not his fault.

And how about Justice Alito's "Joe Wilson" moment, when he said, "Not true" to Obama's claim the recent Supreme Court Decision would allow foreign dollars to influence our elections. All I gotta say is, lucky for him he isn't from South Cackalacki, or else he would be labeled a racist. Ahem. I am sure this will be looked at from every which way in the upcoming days. But in case you missed it, here it is, with commentary from Peter Johnson:



Wow, that was some response from Mr. Johnson, who is, by the way, a Democrat, and who voted for Obama.

What else? Oh, yes, the whole DADT thing that Obama punted out to the Congress. That's exactly what he did. DADT could have long ago been repealed, but yet, there it still is. I have zero patience for LGB groups who are going to be thankful for this little throwaway crumb from the table. If Obama wanted to end it, he would have. Now, just because he mentioned it, organizations like Servicemembers Legal Defense Network are all atwitter. Spare me. When Obama, and the Congress, actually DO something about it, then I'll give them appropriate props. But until then, it's the same-o, same-o, all talk and no action.

And how about the Republican Response? It was offered by new Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell from Richmond, in the House of Delegates. Take a look:



I have to say, this is one of the better responses I have seen from either side of the aisle (remember the incredibly painful, stiff response from then-Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius?? Oh, wow - I had such high hopes for her until her incredibly wooden performance. Watching paint dry would have been more interesting.).

I don't know why, but the parts of it I have had to watch (see what I do for you people?), just keep reminding me of this classic piece from "The Life Of Brian":



And there ya have it!

"An Open Letter To Secretary Clinton"

Here we are, the day of President Obama's first State of the Union address. Oh, yippee. While Obama still enjoys a fair amount of support among Democrats, this man who claimed to be the big Uniter, rammed down our throats by the DNC over OUR choice, ain't doing so well in the polls. But this particular one is especially ironic since the DNC claimed Hillary Clinton was too divisive, and would never get elected. Want to guess who has the largest differential between the two parties of any president EVER in his first year???? That's right, that would be Obama. "That One" who claimed he would end partisan politics, change the tone in Washington, D.C., blah, blah, blah. Well, he has certainly done that - he has made it more divisive than it was before. Way to go, DNC!!! Way to pick them!

Maybe the DNC should have actually cared about who was voting for Hillary Clinton, who was crossing over party lines to support her. But no, they were hellbent on destroying her (and Bill), so now we have Obama. Great.

It is for that reason, the partisan, closed door meetings, the attempts to shove legislation down our throats we don't want, and so many, many more, that Will Bower wrote the following, An Open Letter to Secretary Clinton: Save Us from Obama, for Huffington Post recently. I think many of us share Mr. Bower's sentiment. He writes:

Madame Secretary Clinton,

It's time for you to save your party -- and your country -- from Barack Obama.

You have been doing a remarkable job as Secretary of State, but now we need you as the new head of the Democratic Party ... and as our next President of the United States.

I know that it would be virtually unprecedented for a party nomination to be handed to a challenger over an incumbent, but it was unprecedented in 2008 when the party apparatus selected their then preferred candidate over the will and popular vote of the Democratic majority.

You were the rightful candidate then, you are the rightful head of the Democratic Party today, and you would be taking your rightful place as the nominee and president you were meant to become.

Every warning and critique you gave us in regard to Barack Obama has come to fruition. You were correct in every debate, in every political advertisement, and in every interview.

We are where we are today because too many refused to listen to you.

Only Smart Power can save us now, and you are the perfect person to bring us that much needed commodity. Just log into Facebook and you'll see the numerous "Hillary Clinton for 2012" groups springing to new life. A multitude of your supporters are ready to bring about the change that was falsely promised by your opponent in 2008. You got more votes than he did in 2008, and you can get more votes than him again in 2012.

One might warn you that this would only serve to divide the party, leaving the presidency open to takeover by the opposition. Because of your steadfastness during this past primary season, you were given that same warning then, but your party went on to victory all the same.

We tried it their way then. Now, it's time to try it your way.

In the upcoming midterm elections of 2010, your party will pay the price for its lack of vision. There is little to stop that now. Once that happens, more of a balance will be restored, and both your party and your country will be ready to move forward once again -- with you at the helm -- to a truly better future.

Thank you, Madame Secretary. We'll be standing by.

Indeed we will. And if, for some reason, anyone needs a reminder as to why we supported Hillary Clinton in the first place, this video sums it up beautifully:



Let's help Obama fulfill his dream of being a "really good one-term president" (when are you thinking about getting started on that "really good" part?) rather than a mediocre two-term president (though he may just qualify as a "mediocre one term president"). I think if we all work together, we CAN help him leave office in 2012, whether it is on a good note or not. Well, I'm thinking it will be the latter if Year One is any indicator. That is all the more reason to get someone in there who can LEAD, who cares about the country and the people in it, one who is truly a populist leader, not just one who is now trying to act like one. That would be Madame Secretary, no doubt about it. Yes, let's make this just one term for Barack Obama.

Don't you agree?