EXACTLY!!!!

Too bad that proposed legislation (from many years ago) to cap spending didn't pass....now, we got trillion dollar deficits!!!

Nine top political appointees at the Justice Department previously worked as lawyers or advocates for "enemy combatants" confined at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prompting new questions from Congress and conservative critics about the integrity of the administration's handling of detainees.

The Justice Department insists that the officials have not involved themselves in matters dealing with enemy combatants. But the department has revealed the names of only two of the nine appointees, making it difficult to independently assess the claim. And one of the named officials -- Jennifer Daskal, a lawyer in the national security division -- sits on a task force weighing the future of Guantanamo prisoners. She is a former senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, which worked on behalf of ensuring constitutional rights for detainees during the George W. Bush presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/republicans-question-just_n_483573.html

Looks like the administration may be investigating the other seven unnamed political appointees before the truth gets out. No wonder Obama is backing off civilian trials......and so much for the "transparency and ethics"....AGAIN

When government grows, prosperity shrinks. So does freedom. With those powerfully simple truths in mind, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican, and Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, on March 3 introduced one of the most intriguing constitutional amendment proposals in years. Their Spending Limit Amendment merits great attention and with a few tweaks will deserve enthusiastic support.

Except in times of declared war or when two-thirds of each house of Congress decides otherwise, the amendment would limit "total annual outlays" of the federal government (except repayment of principle of the national debt) to "one-fifth of economic output" of the country. Mr. Pence and Mr. Hensarling, along with original co-sponsor Rep. John Campbell, California Republican, note that federal spending of 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) has been the historical average since World War II, and spending didn't breach 23 percent in a single year for more than four decades. Under the current spending explosion, however, outlays have risen from exactly 20 percent to a near-astronomical 24.7 percent in just two years, with the trend line heading toward 40 percent over the next two decades.

By foisting mind-boggling amounts of debt onto generations yet unborn, this spending is so unsustainable as to be immoral. It's also completely counterproductive in the short term. "You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity," Mr. Hensarling said Thursday on a media conference call. He's right. So was Mr. Pence when he repeatedly emphasized that limited government and minimal debt are essential elements to national security. That's because domestic spending sprees crowd out available resources for security and because overspending often puts us in hock to foreign governments that buy our debt.

The fact is that when 1995's new Republican Congress began rescinding (taking back) federal spending that already had been approved and then held the line on spending for the next three years while also reforming welfare, the economy boomed. Spending was 21 percent of GDP in 1994, and it was held in succeeding years to percentages of 20.7, 20.3, 19.6, 19.2, 18.7 and 18.4. As spending discipline increased, GDP grew during that period at a steady and superb clip of an average 4 percent per year, and the national unemployment rate improved steadily from 6.1 percent to 4 percent.

One drawback is that the amendment as drafted leaves it to Congress to pass "enabling legislation" to put the limit into practice. For example, the amendment does not explain how "one-fifth of economic output" is to be measured. Mr. Hensarling suggests using the average GDP for the previous five years. But lawmakers could instead define it as some sort of "projected" GDP for the coming year and then fudge the projections to give themselves more wiggle room. To avoid that, the amendment should define its goals with more specificity.

Nitpicking aside, the amendment makes a ton of sense. Members of Congress who won't sign onto it ought to be held to account.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/08/stop-the-orgy-in-congress/

And ...Obama's numbers....

Get real...Obama has had SOOOO much trouble with his nominees across the board.

Still in denial...r ya...

The Obama Way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe

Michelle Malkin – Fri Mar 5, 3:00 am ET

The White House took great offense this week when conservatives suggested President Obama might be trading a judicial appointment for a wavering Democrat's vote on his health care reform plan. "Absurd," a miffed administration official told Politico.com. Wherever could the American people get such an impression? Let us count the ways.

On Wednesday, the very day Obama hosted 10 swing Democrats who had opposed the expansive health care takeover bill in November, the White House issued a press release trumpeting the nomination of Scott M. Matheson Jr. to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matheson just happens to be the brother of Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah — one of the 10 Dems invited to sip wine and nosh on calorically correct appetizers with the arm-twister-in-chief.

The seat on the 10th Circuit has been vacant for nearly a year. When one of the judges, Michael McConnell, resigned to take a lucrative post at Stanford Law School last summer, Matheson — Rhodes Scholar, law school professor and dean — let the White House know right away he wanted the job. For nearly a year, there was no action.

Liberal groups have been complaining for months about the glacial pace of Obama's judicial nominations — a predicament they blame not solely on obstructionist Republicans, but on Obama's own team of incompetent, indecisive foot-draggers who put the issue at the bottom of their priority list. (It's worth noting that Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch supports Matheson's candidacy.)

As the National Law Journal pointed out at the beginning of this year, "the Obama administration has been slower than the Bush administration was in sending judicial nominations to the Senate, submitting 12 circuit nominations last year compared with 28 for Bush in 2001. The White House last named a circuit nominee on Nov. 4."

Now, out of nowhere, comes the announcement of Matheson's nomination — in the heat of White House vote-grubbing to salvage the Democrats' government health care designs? To quote Dana Carvey's old Church Lady character on "Saturday Night Live": How conveeenient.

Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that this is all merely coincidence. Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson's judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day Obama was wooing his brother? Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.

The perception of a judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal is, of course, horribly unfair to Matheson, who seems more than qualified for the position. But full blame for creating that unmistakable perception lies squarely at the feet of the rank opportunists in the White House, whose timing is worse than a broken metronome.

This debacle comes on the heels of damning disclosures about other possible White House bribery. Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania admitted to veteran Philly newsman Larry Kane that Team Obama dangled a "high-ranking" position in the administration if he dropped out of the Senate race and left incumbent Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter alone.

In Colorado, the Denver Post reported last fall that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina "offered specific suggestions" for an Obama administration job to far-left Democrat Andrew Romanoff if he withdrew his challenge to White House-backed incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

And earlier this month, The Washington Times noted that Mary Patrice Brown, the person assigned by the Justice Department to oversee an internal investigation into the shady dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation cases, is now "the leading candidate for a federal judgeship — for which she is being vetted by some of the same offices she supposedly is investigating."

So, wherever did we get the impression that pay-for-play is the Obama way? Somewhere, Chicago corruptocrat Rod Blagojevich — who wanted to play, but didn't get paid — is laughing bitterly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100305/cm_uc_crmmax/op_1913171

I put up a sign that read....Bad Dog on Premises....People would blow their horn before getting out of their vehicle....

For the first time, the president explicitly called on Congress to use a procedural technique that will let the Senate give its final approval with a simple majority vote. He didn't use the word for that technique—"reconciliation"—but characterized the process as a way of calling a simple "up or down vote" that has been used for big bills.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099561273510680.html

Remember, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck!!!

Here's what Obama said about using the 50 plus one vote to get health care legislation passed.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/RetroObama_Were_not_going_to_pass_health_care_with_a_50_plus_1_strategy_.html?showall

Put him next to OJ.....here's why it matters....if politicians will lie and cheat on their wives they sure as hell won't have any problem lying and cheating and deceiving the taxpayers. Democratic party dodged a good one, thank the National enquirer!!!

How Obama fixes the mess....

Ah, politicians that lie and break campaign promises and make back room deals breed negativity......

President Obama said on Thursday, "The politics of dealing with chronic deficits is fraught with hard choices, and therefore, it's treacherous to officeholders here in Washington. As a consequence, nobody has been too eager to deal with it." He then handed the problem off to a commission, thus proving his point.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/obama-avoids-hard-budget-choices/

"Still in Denial'????

Maybe Obama should apologize to McCain.

yeah, if he was he KNEW it was just a matter of time before the data errors were discovered.

School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home
By Cory Doctorow at 11:49 PM February 17, 2010

According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these machines.

If true, these allegations are about as creepy as they come. I don't know about you, but I often have the laptop in the room while I'm getting dressed, having private discussions with my family, and so on. The idea that a school district would not only spy on its students' clickstreams and emails (bad enough), but also use these machines as AV bugs is purely horrifying.

Schools are in an absolute panic about kids divulging too much online, worried about pedos and marketers and embarrassing photos that will haunt you when you run for office or apply for a job in 10 years. They tell kids to treat their personal details as though they were precious.

your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it.

Update: The school district admits that student laptops were shipped with software for covertly activating their webcams, but denies wrongdoing.

http://boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html

It's not the insurers profits that is the problem....these profits are TAME compared to a lot of other industries... it's the cost of treatments that require those premiums. When I get charged over $ 50.00 for a plastic bed pan, a plastic pitcher, and a toothbrush that is the problem. Those items can be purchased at the dollar store for $10.00.

The top Un climate change official has resigned over the global warming controversy....the data is NOT CONSISTENT.

Wow...what a loss...it is amazing to me how many people don't claim their lottery winnings...locally, here a $400,000 winning ticket was sold and never claimed.

More details here...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33210.html

President Obama's new Muslim envoy Rashad Hussain admitted Friday to once defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group -- an admission that contradicts earlier claims from the White House that the quotes had been mistakenly attributed to Hussain.

Hussain, named by Obama as an envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, said Friday his comments at the time were "ill conceived or not well formulated."

In 2004, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quoted Hussain saying at a seminar on Muslim issues that Sami al-Arian was the victim of "politically motivated persecutions" after al-Arian, a university professor, was charged in 2003 with heading U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid the group -- designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist group since 1997 -- and was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

The Web version of the 2004 article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs was later edited to delete all of Hussain's comments. Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News last week she believed the change was made in February 2009.

Hanley didn't recall who requested the edit, but Hussain said Friday that he had contacted the publication to "raise concerns" about comments that he said were "without context, leaving a misimpression."

"Eventually, on their own accord, they modified the article," said Hussain, who was a Yale Law student and an editor of the Yale Law Journal at the time of the panel discussion.

The White House initially responded to the controversy by saying this week that the remarks about al-Arian were made by his daughter, Laila al-Arian. But on Friday, Hussain affirmed that the comments were his.

"I made clear at the time that I was not commenting on the allegations themselves (against al-Arian). The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome," Hussain said. "I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill conceived or not well formulated."

Fox news