Good for Helen Thomas.

Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

I don't think what I'm about to suggest is all that revolutionary. I would hope there's common ground here, regardless of whether you're a conservative or progressive, Republican or Democrat, right-wing nutcase or bed-wetting liberal.

And this has nothing specifically to do with the Cap and Trade bill the House of Reps passed yesterday, although that legislation was the inspiration behind this post (as was the TARP vote earlier this year).

So, without further ado, here are some basic parliamentary principles I'd love to see our elected representatives follow:

1. A bill presented to Congress needs to be about what it's about. In other words, every part of the bill needs to be about the main theme of the bill. For instance, if the bill is about stopping global climate change, then it can't have provisions in it that authorize the expanding of some non-climate-change related boondoggle project (a museum, airport, etc) in an on-the-fence member's district
2. As a corollary, if said member wants to use federal funds to fund the aforementioned boondoggle project, he or she should submit a bill to Congress that is specifically about funding said project.
3. Voting on any bill in Congress should not occur until the bill has been finalized and published on the internet for at least 72 hours. Most bills before Congress run hundreds or thousands of pages (though principle #1 above would put the kibosh on that). It's insane for our Congresspeople to vote on bills that they haven't read. Most of us won't spend our own money on something if we haven't done at least a little research to know what we're getting. How come Congress thinks it's OK to spend our money when they have no real way of knowing what they are spending it on?
4. As a corollary, it's insulting for our representatives to vote on bills that their own constituents have not been at least given the opportunity to read. It makes the whole business look really shady.
5. I realize that there's give and take when debating pieces of legislation, and that a bill will morph over time. So I'd relax the 72 hour time-line for additional amendments to a bill that arise in debate. But any amendment would need to adhere strictly to principle #1 above, and at least a 24 hour period should be required for amendments to be published and digested before rushing through a vote.

A note to our Congressional leadership: I understand that it seems important, sometimes, to finish a vote before a long weekend or holiday. But, trust me, the world will survive just fine, even if it has to wait a few more days for our representatives to make sure they know what they are voting on.

These principles seem fairly common-sense to me. Uncontroversial, even. Do I ask too much?

I'll lay my cards on the table: I'm not a big fan of the culture war.

Here are some reasons why:

1. Its expectation is foolish.
Whether you believe America was ever a "Christian nation" or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn't be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won't make anybody a Christian, much less make America "a Christian nation.")

2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel.
This is similar to my point above. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.

3. It is theologically naive.
It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don't know Jesus to act like they do.

4. It is often hypocritical.
It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don't know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can't get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). Repent, Church!

5. It battles against flesh and blood.
We're not supposed to do that. (Eph. 6:12)

6. Its treasure is temporary.
I am not overly concerned with the culture war because it is a battle for something that doesn't last. Culture is temporary. I am far more interested in the transformation of peoples through the transformation of people than I am in the subduing of culture through the modification of behavior. Nobody ever got into heaven by acting better.

7. It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety.
The culture war is largely driven by fear. We're afraid our public schools will ruin our children, we're afraid gay people will ruin our families. We're afraid a Democrat will ruin our country, we're afraid liberals will ruin our neighborhoods. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect our family, and safety of course is not a bad thing. But neither is it a biblical virtue. Ditto comfort. Or have you not read the New Testament? I'm just gonna put this out there, but maybe it's God's design for us as people and for Christians throughout all time to endure hardship, danger, persecution, and even death. Wanting not to suffer is human. Thinking we deserve not to is unChristian.

8. It has no root in Jesus' ministry.
Jesus knew heart change didn't come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.

9. It mangles mission.
The culture war sets the Church above and against the world, rather than in but not of the world. It turns us into picketers and politicos. It makes us suspicious and speculative and sensationalist. It takes relationship completely out of the missional equation. It turns us from peaceful ambassadors for Christ into pontificating warriors for Christianity. It does not ask us to serve and sacrifice, which are non-negotiables for Christian mission, but to maneuver and argue.

In Romans 1:5, Paul writes:

Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

A few things:
Paul says we "call" people. This is the work of gospel proclamation, carried out in both word and deed.
Paul does mention "obedience," but this obedience is the kind that "comes from faith." Faith comes first, then obedience. It never ever ever ever works the other way.
Lastly, and most importantly:

10. The culture war is carried out for our name's sake, not Jesus'.
I am not a fan of gay marriage or Roe v. Wade, and even though I would vote to outlaw the former and repeal the latter, neither of those actions in themselves will make a single unbeliever say "How wonderful Christ is!"
The bitter truth is that the Christian culture war is not carried out for Jesus' glory and renown, but for ours. It makes "Judeo-Christian values" the end-game, the treasure of our mission. And that is idolatry. Nobody was ever legally or argumentatively or even culturally convinced to believe in Jesus. But millions have been loved and served and submitted to into believing.

Dying for somebody says a whole lot more than debating them.

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.
For the glory of God.

(Cross-posted at GDC)

Make it stop . . .

EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together.

Emphasis mine.


[H/T Jonah]

Most Americans are against abortion now.

A majority of Americans now say they oppose abortion rights, according to a Gallup poll released today. It is the first time since the polling outfit began asking the question in 1995 that a majority of Americans have held that position.

I wonder why it changed. Theories?

Mr. Chairman, Vice President Biden has recently written a glowing endorsement of Judge Sotomayor, citing her legal qualifications and experience.

I would like to read this statement into the record, from last year's VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Senator Biden. Can you think of a single issue -- and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year -- can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.

And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.

That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.

And so that -- that -- that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that's why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.

But I did change on that, and -- and I'm glad I did.

I appreciate Vice President Biden's forthrightness on this issue. For that reason, I'd like to ask you Judge Sotomayor, "What is your judicial philosophy? The American People have a right to understand it and know it. And please know that if your idealogy does not line up with that of my constituents, or if I suspect that I won't like your future decisions, that I will vote against you just as then Vice Presidential-hopeful Biden said I should.

Rob writes an insightful post at the Spyglass, excerpted below [emphasis mine]:

For all the biblical language used in Republican rhetoric, and for all the identification of American evangelicals with the Republican Party, there’s really very little in the way of meaningful theological engagement with much of the party platform. Some issues, certainly, are grounded in biblical and theological statements (most notably abortion), but the argument at these points tends to be issue-specific, not part of any coherent whole with the rest of the platform; on issues such as tax policy or immigration policy, there has been a strong tendency among evangelical Republicans to baptize conservative positions as the properly Christian thing to believe without really evaluating them.

This set the stage for the Obama backlash among a certain subset of self-identified evangelicals in the 2008 election. He didn’t actually gain many evangelical votes, but the ones he did attract tended to be very loud; he also managed to appear sufficiently unthreatening that many other evangelicals felt it safe to indulge their displeasure with John McCain and stay home instead of voting. Among both groups, there was the sense that the Republican Party has been happy in years past to pay lip service to evangelical concerns in order to raise money and turnout, but has done little or nothing to actually address those concerns in a meaningful way; party leaders haven’t taken voters’ faith seriously, but have only seen it as something to be used and manipulated to their own ends. This sense has been growing stronger for some time, and in 2006 and 2008, it manifested in voter defections that returned the Democratic Party to power.

In my view, that sense is entirely fair, and entirely unsurprising. The thing about theologized politics is that it essentially amounts to the subversion of faith for political ends, leaving the political platform—and party—in the dominant position; religious folk are welcomed at the fundraising counter and the volunteer meeting, but when it comes to the actual making of policy we’re expected to just shut up and soldier. This is what evangelicals found with the GOP—which is why so many of us are backing away from the party, even if we’re just as conservative as we ever were (or maybe especially so, since the party definitely isn’t)—and it’s what those who bought the rhetoric and voted for the candidate of Hopeychangeyness are now finding with the Democrats as well. It is, after all, in the nature of political parties to use whatever they can with as little return commitment as they can; anything freely offered will be freely taken, with no sense of reciprocal obligation.

As a matter both of faithful Christian discipleship and of intelligent political engagement, then—and make no mistake about it, the former requires the latter—the critical need at this time is for Christians in America to break out of this pattern and assert a new model for the interaction between faith and politics; and to do that, we must begin with ourselves. We must begin, as I wrote last time,

to break ourselves of the habit of using the language of Christian faith to support what we have already decided we believe, and to teach ourselves instead to use our faith to critique our politics, and ultimately to rebuild our political convictions on the ground of our faith.

And on that ground and no other we must assert ourselves in the political life of this nation, not as docile sheep to be shorn for the advancement of the agendas and ambitions of politicians and parties, but as independent agents for the glory of God and the advancement of the work of his kingdom.

OK, I think you people stopped watching these Friday "The Tick" Posts that all have "Everybody Needs..." in the title.

Watch this one! It's the last one. I promise.

It goes along quite nicely with one of Bill's posts right below this one... trust me. Hey, it's only 16 seconds of your life...

Everybody needs to watch this one. (And comment so I know you did ;-)

Well, credit cards are bad anyway (we don't use 'em, and have no debt except for our mortgage right now. Debt's bad).

But doesn't this seem to be somewhat backwards?

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

. . .

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Here's my favorite part:

“There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you’ll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,” said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.

People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks.

“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”

Congratulations, all of you who have been prudent and prompt in your credit card payments and personal financial management. Here you thought you were law-abiding citizens. But you're not.

You're bandits.

Sheesh . . .

[H/T The Corner]

If you take Government money, you have to expect some strings. But it really stinks when you're not allowed to give it back and free yourself.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

It can happen here.

Is a "documentary" a campaign Ad?

But the Supreme Court must now determine what the scathing, 90-minute anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie is: a slashing journalistic documentary protected by the First Amendment or a political attack ad that must be regulated by campaign finance laws during election season. The court's decision could determine the future of the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws, one justice said.

Government lawyers argued Tuesday that conservative group Citizens United's documentary about the former presidential candidate is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law. The test "does not depend on the length," Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.

Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall," Kennedy said.

But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked. It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention. That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said. What if Wal-Mart wanted to run ads touting an action figure of a political candidate, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, could that be regulated? "If it's aired at the right place at the right time," Stewart said.

Citizens United's attempts to pay for the movie to be shown on video-on-demand — where people request "Hillary: The Movie" be shown on the televisions in their home — could bring heightened First Amendment scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia said. Not only would the government be preventing the movie's producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it, Scalia said. "Isn't that a heightened First Amendment" concern, Scalia asked.

I wonder if the governments current administration would argue the same thing about "Farenheit 9/11". Aren't Liberals supposed to be for free speech?

I've long thought that McCain/Feingold violated the First Amendment. Now I get to see if the Supreme Court agrees with me.

This has some scary implications.

One reason that I've posted several times on the AIG debacle is because there are few things that get me more incensed than when the Government goes after private citizens so that congressional and executive branch blowhards can pretend to be defenders of humanity.

In addition, I work for a corporation that is evil (not really, but we are an energy company that produces natural gas, which is an energy product that you use to heat your house, so, you know, we're shady). I know how corporations work, having been in one most of my adult life. Bad business decisions and even fraudulent shenanigans do happen at times. Normally the results are pretty bad and the perpetrators end up losing their jobs or, in the case of fraud, being prosecuted. But the vast, vast majority of people in these companies are just like you: they work hard and honestly so that they can take care of their families.

From Don Surber: AIG’s $1-a-year slaves:

Jake DeSantis quit and to its credit, the New York Times published his letter of resignation to Ed Liddy, the fall guy for the enormous mess made of A.I.G.

“I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down,” DeSantis wrote.

DeSantis came up the hard way, working his way into MIT and becoming an equity trader.

“The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers,” he wrote.

Now, after promising him a bonus for his hard work, Liddy, Congress and Andrew Cumo are making DeSantis and 72 others out to be villains.

They are heroes.

They are victims of a rich hunt.

“The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press,” DeSantis wrote.

I am glad he quit.

I hope they all do.

They are men and women of honor — unlike those who dare harass them.

I'm arriving at a place I never thought I'd get to, politically. Regarding our Congress, I'm now in full blown "throw the bums out" mode.

All of them. Every single one of them - Republicans, Democrats. We need to deprive all of the current incumbents of their jobs (or, I guess, to face the sad realities of our system, the best we can do is 100% of our representatives and 33% of our senators in the next election). I realize this includes the few that are doing a good job. That's how unhinged I've become. I realize that if I stick to this, I'll have to vote Democratic in 2010, since most likely my Republican congressman will be running for re-election. I don't know if I can do that (vote Democratic) - since I will most likely disagree on nearly every point of social and fiscal policy with any Democratic congressional candidate offered.

But I also picture the look on Congressional faces on that unlikely day when a majority of them lose their bids for reelection. Would this, perhaps, focus the new ones and any incumbents that remain on jettisoning the nonsense they are subjecting us to and, instead, getting back to the business of running the country with economy and wisdom?

I think it's time. All of them must go [cue Jack Shephard voice: Every. Single. One. Of. Them.]

Below are two current reasons, of the hundreds that I could choose from, why I feel this way, in no particular order:

First: now that Congress has fixed our economy, they have time to examine the NCAA BCS system. Am I the only one who thinks this proves they aren't serious?

And, secondly, there is their ongoing assault on the rule of law, which also illustrates their fundamental lack of economic understanding. In particular, they don't get the fact that markets get very volatile when Congress is charging around like a bull bear in a china shop retroactively punishing people who have done nothing illegal. Markets like the rules of the game to stay relatively stable, and they get very jittery when the rules start changing, especially when the change is politically driven and at the whim of our jellyfish-spined, bullying political class. Good luck.

Yet the AIG bonus episode, the administration's one true disgrace so far, will not soon be forgotten.

Tim Geithner is rightly on the hot seat for saying he didn't know about the bonuses until just weeks ago -- because he should have quelled this furor before it ever got started. Instead he played dumb and climbed aboard the outrage bandwagon -- and let Mr. Obama do the same.

There is not a shred of justice in the hysteria that followed. As AIG chief Ed Liddy explained on the Hill last week, the people receiving retention bonuses were not the same people who launched AIG's unhedged housing bets that brought the company down. Those people were gone. Their pay is already being clawed back.

Those who remained had been asked a year ago to stay and work themselves out of a job. In accepting the terms offered to them, they committed no offense (say, failing to pay taxes). Their only crime was possessing marketable knowledge -- all the more marketable because of the opportunity for hedge funds and other counterparties to profit from AIG's distress. Had the company submitted to Chapter 11 rather than a government takeover, a bankruptcy judge might well have authorized identical incentives to minimize losses and maximize recovery for legitimate stakeholders.

. . .

But the biggest lesson here is the old one that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance -- beginning with insistence on the rule of law. Americans clearly cannot trust their elected officials to defend their rights and interests, or care whether justice is served, when the slightest political risk might attach to doing so.

Which brings us back to Mr. Cuomo, whose office has been implicitly threatening to publish names of AIG employees who don't relinquish pay they were contractually entitled to.

Mr. Cuomo is a thug, but at least he reminds us: It can happen here.

I realize that this post is more a rant than a well-thought-out argument. I also realize that (pardon the P.J. O'Rourkian french here) ". . . every Government is a parliament of whores. The problem is, in a democracy, the whores are us."

Realizing all that. I still say.

Throw the bums out. All of them.

The now infamous "Special Olympics" joke...

To his credit, he's already apologized. But it was a horrible comment. I think he was "trying to be funny" because he was on Jay Leno. But I still don't like it. "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks."

What if G.W. had said that? No apology or offer to bring a special olympian to the White House would have been good enough. People would have been calling for his resignation.

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that the late night talk show comedians don't make fun of Obama like they did previous presidents? G.W. Bush and Clinton are STILL the butt of Leno/Letterman jokes. But they don't make fun of Obama. They might make fun of people around Obama or people who respond to Obama. But Obama himself has not yet been the butt of even one joke that I'm aware of.

Why?

That said, I think Obama totally deserved this comment:

Shriver said there is someone who might be able to help the president with his bowling: a special Olympian in the Detroit area who has bowled three perfect games.

I love that!

I'm not sure if I'm in sync with most of our readers but, regarding the AIG bonus debacle, let me state where I stand: I'm for letting them keep their bonuses.

Do I like the situation? No. But I really, really like the rule of law.

From the inestimable Jonah Goldberg:

From what I can tell, the bonuses do stink — although some are as small as $1,000 and presumably go to people who had no significant part in the credit-default-swap-derivative mania of recent years. But let’s assume that they’re all gratuitous. Summers was still right.

When the federal government, on behalf of taxpayers, opted to essentially nationalize AIG — we now own 80 percent of the company — we made a choice to keep it alive. If the firm had gone out of business through bankruptcy — what the gods wanted in the first place — there would be no bonuses. But we chose not to do that. Which means those bonuses are just one more toxic debt for which we are on the hook. For good or ill, we chose to defy the natural order. And now we own this monstrous white elephant.

Here’s a good rule of thumb: When you buy an elephant, you can’t refuse to buy the manure that comes with it. You can try, but, soon enough, you’ll be knee-deep in problems anyway. And they’ll continue to pile up no matter how loudly you complain, “This isn’t what I paid for.”

Unfortunately, it looks like Summers is fighting a losing battle.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is getting set to churn out subpoenas to investigate the bonuses. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) demanded that AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, who came aboard after these contracts were signed and the company imploded, resign. Somehow I doubt that would make hiring a new caretaker any easier.

Meanwhile, Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) wants to fire anyone who takes the bonuses. “These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don’t have a right to their jobs forever,” Frank said on NBC’s Today show Monday. “Forget about the legal matter here for a second. These bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously, who made terrible decisions.”

One wonders, given that logic, why Frank is accepting a congressional pay raise considering his role in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle.

Later on Monday, President Obama caved to the populist chorus. He said he asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who also helped oversee the mess we’re in, to “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.” Obama said all Americans ask “is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic that we have to demand.”

. . .

We should have learned from the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac what dangers lie ahead: The rule of law and political manipulation of the economy don’t mix well (Indeed, AIG’s toxic loans were made with considerable regulatory and political oversight). Liddy — the front-line sweeper behind the AIG elephant — has already warned the administration that letting politics dictate salaries and bonuses will make it difficult for the firm to retain talented staff.

But the unintended consequences surely won’t end there. What signal does it send when the president and Congress make it clear that they will revisit legal contracts that run afoul of populist outrage? Already, many banks that have received bailout money are returning it — or trying to — because the political strings attached hinder them against competitors. Worse, the highly politicized climate requires financial firms to become dependent on the whims of Washington, which can’t help thaw out frozen credit markets, particularly when Geithner has yet to explain what his actual policy will be.

Wells Fargo Chairman Richard Kovacevich, who was forced against his better judgment to take TARP funds, is livid with the Treasury secretary. “Is this America,” he asks, “when you do what your government asks you to do and then retroactively you also have additional conditions?”

The New York Times reports that the administration is worried about a coming “populist backlash.” It is right to be worried. But further blurring the lines between politics and the market isn’t the answer. That’s how we got in this mess in the first place.

1- Bi-partisanship, smartisanship, dumbisanship...oh, phooey. When virtually EVERY member of the other party votes against it, maybe that should mean something if you actually care about bi-partisanship. But it doesn't. At the end of the day, idealogy is what matters. And this is liberal idealogy, plain and varnished.

2- We don't have the money. Seriously, we don't. Read carefully now. "WE. DON'T. HAVE. THE. MONEY." Of course, on the upside, if China decides not to loan us the money the stimulus package won't be able to be implemented anyway. This last sentence is not a joke and my tongue isn't in my cheek. I'm serious. The money will have to be borrowed from foreigners.

3- It's mostly government spending. Do you seriously think that money can be used most efficently by government entities to stimulate the economy? That's like deciding to send a team of five year olds to water your garden by walking from a pond to your garden with sponges. Yeah, some water's gonna get there...

4-So many of the jobs "created" are temporary construction jobs. I mean, come on, people. Do you really think that's going to stimulate the economy or have long-term impact? Yes, it will help some construction companies and workers for a couple years, but then what?...

5- The debt amassed here that will have to be paid by your children's tax dollars is beyond most of our comprehension. Think about how much of your monthly mortgage payment goes to interest. Now multiply that by a million, or a billion or a trillion or a gazillion. Oh, nevermind. Who knows how much anymore?

6- It's socialism. So much of this involves government takeover and/or handouts it's .... I don't have a word.

7- Tax Cuts would work better. When people have more money, they spend it, or invest it. That's how the economy actually works. Really. And by the way, I mean actual tax cut, meaning that you send less of your money to the government. I don't mean "tax rebate" checks, or "tax refund" checks which are actually wealth redistribution when people who don't actually pay income tax get checks. I mean actual tax cuts where you and companies having to pay less at the end of the year. Or how about a tax moratorium? Rather than spending billions of dollars, why not just suspend taxes for one year? Well, OK. I don't know far $787 billion will go. Will that support our Federal Gov't for a few months maybe? During that "tax-free period" the government can borrow money to fund itself, and fund all the states too. How's that for stimulus? :)

8- The liberals used this as an excuse to spend money on their pet projects. The list of things in this package law "wish-list come true" is truly ridiculous. For congress and state governments it's like Christmas. And like the Little Shop of Horrors, those pets are going to keep growing and demanding more and more, long past our ability to feed them. "Feed me, Seymour."

9- Now more people will be on the dole. How are we going to keep paying those people once the stimulus money runs out? It's hard to go back people. Just look at Social(ism) Security. We used to live without it. Now it's political suicide to even think anything against it. And right now some of you are thinking about me, "Hey, my grandmother lives on social security. How dare you!" Exactly.

10-State and Local Governments are salivating. Today Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that contrary to his previous statement that Texas wouldn't take its billions from the Federal government, he's changed his mind. He wants to spend that money enhancing border security. State governments are going to be duped into taking that money and boosting social programs. And once the federal funds run out, they'll be faced with state government programs that they can't pay for, but that the public will continue to expect. It's political suicide to stop hand-outs. But they can't wait to get that money to do all kinds of things. Do you think they'll cut local taxes since they are getting so much outside funding? NO WAY! Now they get to do more.

11-Headlines like this one - How stimulus will affect you - The $787 billion package passed by Congress offers tax breaks, tuition help, and more. » What you'll get (from the Yahoo Home Page)

Greed is greed, Mr. President. Whether it's a corporate CEO or a plumber. And here you are not just encouraging the deadly disease of "I-want-itus" but creating it too.

12- The same Government that broke our economy by making banks adhere to their liberal agenda, is trying to fix it by making more industries adhere to their liberal agenda.

13- The same President that decries "corporate greed" is now fostering greed among state and local governments in ways previously unimaginable.

14- I don't think it's going to work. It reminds me of a story my former pastor told me. He had a church member who was a dermatologist. The pastor asked the dermatologist to look at a rash his son had. The doctor said,"We have two options. I can write you a prescription for a cream, and the rash should go away in about 6 weeks or you can just wait for it to go away on its own" My pastor said, "How long will that take?" "About 6 weeks", came the reply.

Please tell me good things about "Porkulous Rex" in comments. I'd love to hear something positive. And I don't mind being proven wrong. (Well, not too much anyway. ) Or maybe you want to tell me why you're mad too. How long can we make this list?

OR PLEASE DO THIS FOR FUN - How many cool nicknames can you folks come up with for this monstrosity?

From Al Mohler:

The pornography industry has a big stake in defending itself against legal challenges and restrictive laws, and it has been stunningly successful in doing so. One of the leading legal defenders of pornography has been David Ogden, a lawyer who can only be described as a First Amendment extremist, who has even argued against laws against child pornography.

President Barack Obama has nominated David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. This nomination is both ominous and dangerous. Given David Ogden's high visibility in defense of pornography, this nomination sends a clear and unmistakable message. The pornography business will have a friend in high office in the Department of Justice.

(Via Vitamin Z)

The President says it's tacky for execs to make lots of money in a bad economy.

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only bad taste -- it's bad strategy -- and I will not tolerate it as president," he said.

Any update on the economic revitalization those inauguration parties created in D.C.?

TV Spot #3 - "Liberty"

(Me lounging behind a desk with my feet propped up and a pillow behind my head. A computer screen behind me shows "Solitaire")

Too many politicians say they want to work for you. But their version of work is finding ways to regulate you, tax you or spend your money. Virtually every law passed does one of those three things. If that's the kind of thing that politicians consider work, than I would rather they would do nothing. Wouldn't you?

I won't be your nanny. I won't give you more rules to follow or take your neighbors' money to give you a handout. You only need one momma.

If you elect me, I promise that I will stay out of your way. I promise that I won't write, work for or vote for any law unless it protects your Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness. I promise to leave you alone because I believe that you will do better if government stays out of your way.

My name is Philip Schroeder and I believe that the best government governs least so you can bet I approve this message."

(I lean back in my chair and close my eyes for a nap. Fade to black)

Over screen that says "Vote Phil", announcer says, "Vote Phil. He won't work unless he has to. And that's a good thing."

TV Spot #2 - "Life"

(Me standing in front of a giant picture of an 8 week old unborn child, or maybe in front of a woman receiving a sonogram where the 8 week old baby is clearly visible on the screen)

"The creature you see behind me came into existence 8 weeks ago. It has two human parents, and human DNA. It receives nourishment from the mother who gave it life and it is growing. It has a head, arms, legs and fingers.

By the eighth week of pregnancy, every organ is present and in place. The embryonic period is now over. Ninety percent of the structures found in an adult human being can be found in this tiny embryo (now called a fetus) which is only about an inch and a half long. The brain, at this point, accounts for almost half of the body's total weight, and 75% of 8-week fetuses demonstrate right-hand dominance. Intermittent breathing motions (though there is no air present in the uterus) occur, and male testes are releasing testosterone. As the skin thickens, it loses much of its transparency.


"Measuring one-and-one-fourth inches from crown to rump and weighing about one-thirtieth of an ounce, the (56-day-old) embryo is now all but fully formed. All body systems are in place and elaborated. Architecturally, the organism is more or less whole... Though the energy output is about one-fifth that of an adult, the heart is functionally complete... A great passage has been made."

Alexander Tsiaras, From Conception to Birth. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2002. p. 183.

88% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the at 13th week (AGI/CDC).

I believe that all human beings have the right to live.

My name is Philip Schroeder and I don't want anyone to choose to end your life no matter how old you are, how big you are, or how difficult you may be to care for so you can bet I approve this message."

Update: I apologize that some of the "facts" I originally included about fetal development were biased, and some actually turned out to be false. I did not intend to mislead, nevertheless I offer no excuses. I'm sorry.

So this is what it feels like to be a politician... :)

I replaced the misleading paragraph with a direct quote from here. If anyone has any suggestions about how to reword it to make it less sterile, yet still factually accurate, I'm open.