Even a messiah loses his training wheels

The m-O-ssiah, Chairman Mao-bama, can’t blame Bush anymore.  Bush may have pushed for the initial stimulus bull, er…, bill.  But Uh-bama himself supported it as a senator.  The subsequent $787 billion dollar pork bill, $400 billion omnibus bill, and the other hosts of spending supported by the m-O-ssiah and accomplished by the democrat congress can’t be blamed on Bush.  Sorry.  He was already a fading memory in the history of the presidency when Obama signed these bills into law.  He alone is responsible for quadrupling the entire national debt that has ever existed from the founding of this country.  He alone now is responsible for the continuing downturn in economic growth.  He alone…  Leadership is a lonely occupation.  Sometimes it sucks when you’re the Main Mo Fo In Charge.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/even-a-messiah-loses-his-training-wheels/print/

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

PRUDEN: Even a messiah loses his training wheels

Wesley Pruden (Contact)

ANALYSIS/OPINION

Disconnecting the training wheels is a scary prospect for every apprentice biker, even with Daddy standing close by. We can sympathize with Barack Obama’s fright as his moment approaches. It’s not easy suddenly being on your own, paying the price of falling with your own skinned knees and bruised elbows.

Nevertheless, the dreadful moment approacheth. Anticipating D-Day, Peter Orszag, the president’s budget director, said Monday that the scarier than expected economic news – the deficit out of control, tax receipts down and costs of bailouts and “stimulus” plans up – is all the fault of George W. Bush: “It’s an economic crisis President Obama inherited.”

But Mr. Obama has already been president for more than a hundred days, and passing the hundred-day mark, irrelevant milestone as it may be, was cited as dead-solid proof that the president is the messiah he told everyone he was. Reality, however, has begun to cast a shadow over the White House, still as faint as the bright golden haze on the meadow but visible enough. “Blaming George” still makes a tingle run up the legs of all the hymn-singing true believers, but outside the embrace of the cult, that tingle is beginning to sting instead. This is Mr. Obama’s government now.

The White House on Monday said the new estimate of the budget deficit would nearly reach $2 trillion – that’s trillion, with a “t” – and that’s nearly 13 percent of the entire gross domestic product. Pretty gross any way you spin it, and the president’s men (and women) are spinning it as best they can. Alas, the country’s predicament, if not yet the president’s, is probably worse than it looks.

The projected budget deficit is four times larger than the deficit record set last year. We can blame that one on George, but George, big spender that he was, turns out to have been a tightwad. Maybe this is the “change” Mr. Obama promised. Yes, he did.

The administration insisted Monday that by the end of this year the gross domestic product will be growing at a rate of 3.5 percent, which would be good news so good that it’s likely to be too good to be true, and it’s certainly more optimistic than any private economic forecast anyone has seen beyond the White House fence.

The White House flogged this news in a statement studded with more weasel words than usual: “Although the economic downturn so far in 2009 has been more severe than the administration expected when the forecast was finalized, if the financial system begins to function more normally, there is every reason to expect a somewhat stronger recovery, given the depth of the current recession.” Translation: “Don’t blame us, nothing is ever the fault of the messiah, maybe everything will get a little better if it actually does get better. We hope. But don’t count on it.”

What shines through the spinning, bright and bold, is that Mr. Obama no longer believes in the pie in the sky he promised. He has obviously learned a few things in his first hundred days. “Wow! So that’s where babies come from.” But he still can’t give up his teleprompter, his training wheels and good ol’ George. Good ol’ George is the president’s teddy bear. He can’t go to sleep without Teddy. George is his imaginary person, too, on whom he can blame everything. He feels very close to imaginary George.

George the imaginary person threatens everything Mr. Obama has in store for us – higher taxes (whether disguised as “user fees” or “investments”), Al Gore’s vast scheme to combat global warming whether the globe is warming or not, and a health-care plan guaranteed to eventually assure every American access to medical care equal to the quality health care now available in France, Canada, Britain and maybe even Lower Volta.

The good news, such as it is, is that the remaking of America in a way that a Chicago street “activist” of a generation ago hardly dared dream of may be of such potent poison that the body politic will reject it, as a healthy human body might reject a massive dose of arsenic (perhaps administered by someone in old lace). Several of the president’s Democratic allies in Congress are already balking at his scheme to extract killer taxes, such as curbing deductions for mortgage interest, gifts to churches and charities, and state and local taxes.

Soaking the rich, so-called, is OK, but marinating the rich may not be helpful. More than skinned knees and bruised elbows are in prospect as Barack Obama finally discovers that ready or not, he’s the president now.

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

His Majesty Uh-Bama says “Let them eat pizza!” Rue Paul gets makeover before party.

The blatant hypocrisy of the new American aristocracy is on full display, but it isn’t getting any attention because of the orgasmic love affair between the mainstream media and the Rock Star Obamas. Notice the NBC puff piece on BO’s decision to pick St. Louis pizza instead of Chicago pizza for his latest tax payer funded White House party. So much for Uh-Bama’s promise to be a responsible steward of tax payer money. Once again, the liberal double standard rears its ugly head. If G.W. Bush so much as farted, the left and the mainstream media immediately labeled him an eco-terrorist. When Bill Clinton shut down the entire west coast air traffic system by delaying his takeoff so he could get a $200 haircut aboard Air Force 1 from some expensive LA hair stylist, did ANYONE on the left or the mainstream media criticize the millions of dollars wasted because of his arrogance? No. Is anyone on the left or in the mainstream media now talking about the waste, arrogance, and attitude of royalty displayed by the Obama’s in their waste of taxpayer money on their constant partying, makeup artists, expensive clothes (OK for Michelle at taxpayer expense, but not for Sarah Palin paid for by DONATIONS) and jet-setting around the world? Crickets. On to the next item of hypocrisy. Remember BO’s pandering to the environmental left and his push to implement carbon taxes on all fossil fuels? Cap and Trade? Carbon Credits? Carbon Foot Prints? Has anyone on the left or in the mainstream media said a word about how many tons of plant food (carbon dioxide green house gasses for you fools who think that man-made global warming is real) were put into the atmosphere for Obama’s benefit just to fly in a pizza chef AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE from St. Louis? Simon and Garfunkel singing “The Sound of Silence.” For crying out loud, he even lied about the dog he promised his kids. He said it had to be a dog from the Humane Society or similar facility, and it had to be a “mutt” like he was. Turns out to be a water dog given as a gift by the Kennedy’s. Does anyone besides me see the irony in that? I think the Kennedy’s water dog was named Mary-Jo.

Chicago deep dish diss?

Posted: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:30 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Barack Obama

From NBC’s Danielle Weisberg
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Atlantic, President Obama was supposed to fly in a pizza chef to prepare lunch for his guests at the White House today. An ode to the trademark deep-dish pizza of his hometown Chicago?

Not quite.

The chef being flown in is Ryan Mangialardo, partner in St. Louis’s Pi restaurant. Obama declared Mangialardo’s pizza “the best pizza I’ve ever eaten” on the campaign trail last October.

While the president has displayed his Chicago loyalty — proudly sporting his White Sox baseball hat, rooting for Da Bears, cheering for the Bulls — some in the Windy City might be surprised about his pizza preference.

---

‘Glamorous’ Michelle Obama: Full-time Makeup Artist in White House

By Cathryn Friar

The transformation of Michelle Obama from angry and bitter candidate’s wife to fashionista icon of the world has been really remarkable to witness.

‘Glamour First’ seems to be the motto for the Obama White House and for First Lady Michelle Obama.

When looking at the above before and after pics, is there any doubt that Michelle Obama has had a heck of a lot of work done to soften and stylize her appearance since we first became aware of her two years ago? ‘The camera doesn’t lie’ as they say. We can see from the reshaping of her seriously wicked eyebrows, the adding of diva false eyelashes, and a trendy designer wardrobe that she looks completely different these days.

Now we’re told that Michelle Obama is the nation’s first First Lady to add a full-time makeup artist to her traveling entourage, according to the stylists who have worked with presidential wives over the past 16 years.

Her new makeup artist is Ingrid Grimes-Miles and she is behind the first of Michelle Obama’s make up reinventions – those scary eyebrows. It seems after the First Lady was criticized for looking angry, her high-arched eyebrows were reshaped to give her a ‘friendlier’ appearance. The overall make up goal for Michelle Obama? A more natural and polished look.

Make up, in Michelle Obama’s case, is a very good thing.

Seriously, we all want our First Family to have all they need to represent us well home and abroad. But Michelle Obama needs to prove she is more then someone who is simply a fashion icon. Many of us still view her as having a very complicated and difficult personality that includes being unpatriotic, quite angry with racist overtones, and definately bitter – all qualities that are completely unacceptable in a First Lady. Do they have reinventing stylists for this as well? Maybe.

---

Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour

Michelle Obama has become the first presidential wife to travel with a full-time make-up artist on tour as she wowed crowds in Europe recently.
By Our Foreign Staff
Last Updated: 6:12PM BST 13 Apr 2009

Hillary Clinton drew criticism for her padded Alice bands and ever-changing hairstyles, and Laura Bush’s sartorial choices were dismissed as dull and matronly. But while the US president’s words topped political agendas on his recent European tour, his wife’s elegant look dominated headlines.

As she faced millions of flashing cameras, the first lady came armed with false eyelashes, a pearl iridescent highlighter to accent the countours of her cheekbones, and subtle pink lipstick.

It has now emerged that the Mrs Obama’s polished glamour is thanks, in part, to Ingrid Grimes-Miles, a 49-year-old make-up artist she met in Chicago six years ago.

“No other first ladies have consistently travelled with a makeup artist,” Bernard Portelli, Hillary Clinton’s former hairdresser, told the New York Post .

As Americans tighten their belts in the midst of the financial crisis, the Obamas have gone to great lengths to adopt a relatively frugal approach to fashion. The first lady is a famous fan of US high street chain J. Crew, which she mixes with designer pieces.

Aware of the sensitivity about public spending during the recession – and of previous criticism of expensive political haircuts – the first couple paid for the expenses of having a make-up artist in their entourage out of their own pocket, according to a spokeswoman for Mrs Obama.

Even in difficult financial times, it might have been a wise investment.

Mrs Obama drew criticism on the campaign trail for looking “angry” following fiery comments that were interpreted as unpatriotic. Some critics even warned that her perceived anger would cost her husband the election.

But a few deft flicks of the tweezers later, Mrs Obama’s eyebrows had been trained into a gentler arc, giving her a friendlier appearance – a move style watchers have attributed to Mrs Grimes-Miles.

---

PROMISES, PROMISES: Is Obama dog a rescue or not?

By SHARON THEIMER – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is Bo a rescued dog or not? Did President Obama keep or break a campaign promise in picking the purebred as the family’s new pet?

The twists and turns of the Portuguese water dog’s route to the White House make for the kind of intrigue that political junkies and the highly opinionated dog world delight in.

Barack Obama and his wife Michelle said during the presidential campaign that they had promised their two girls a dog after the election.

The Obamas repeatedly said they wanted it to be a rescued dog such as one from a shelter. Their search was complicated by daughter Malia’s allergies, which would rule out many of the “mutts” the president has said he would prefer.

Enter Bo, a 6-month-old puppy given up by his first owner and matched with the Obamas through his breeders. Because he was given up by his first owner as a poor fit and is now with his second owners, the Obamas, but never spent time in a shelter or with a rescue group, Bo is a “quasi-rescue dog,” says Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States.

Here’s where the intrigue comes in:

_ Bo’s breeders happen to have bred Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Portuguese water dogs. The Massachusetts Democrat, an Obama friend and political ally, also acquired a pup from Bo’s litter. Bo’s breeders are fans of Obama and named Bo’s litter the Hope and Change litter.

_ Bo’s first owner lives in Washington.

_ Bo was returned to the breeder in early March, fitting the spring timeline the Obamas had given for their dog adoption.

_ Kennedy and his wife Victoria helped line Bo up with the Obamas. Before moving into the White House, the pup spent nearly a month with the Kennedys’ dog trainer in Virginia.

In fact, Bo is a gift to the Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha, from the Kennedys, said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama. The puppy officially arrives Tuesday.

“They were starting their search with shelter dogs, but when the Kennedys learned of this dog and offered it as a gift to the girls, they met the dog, it was a perfect fit for their lifestyle and for Malia’s health concerns,” she said, adding that the Obamas are making a donation to the Washington Humane Society. “Because this gift came before their pound search sort of was completed, they made a gift to some of the places they were looking.”

Still, conspiracy buffs might speculate that Bo was meant for the Obamas all along. Was his adoption engineered to look like a rescue — or at least blur the line to head off criticism that the Obamas had picked a purebred from a breeder?

The Humane Society’s Pacelle acknowledged that the Obamas never flat-out promised to get a dog from a pound or rescue group. And the society has kind words for Obama on its Web site: “Thanks, Mr. President, for giving a second-chance dog a forever home,” it says.

“He’s in a gray area,” Pacelle said of Bo. “But I will say that many animal advocates are disappointed that he (Obama) didn’t go to a shelter or breed rescue group, partly because he set that expectation and because so many activists are focused on trying to reduce the number of animals euthanized at shelters, and there’s no better person to make the case to the American public that you can get a great dog from a shelter than the president.”

The group later removed its congratulatory message and replaced it with: “First Dog Unveiled. Concerns about impact on shelters, demand for breed as Bo makes his debut.”

Bo could be considered rescued, since he was removed from a situation that wasn’t working, said Cesar Millan, host of the National Geographic Channel’s “The Dog Whisperer” and co-founder with his wife of a nonprofit foundation to help abused dogs.

To help Bo settle in, the Obamas should walk him a lot in the early days to bond with him, drain his energy and make him hungry for his meals, Millan said. That will give the dog a routine and help him see that the family is the source of his food, and he has to work for it, he said.

“The dog doesn’t know he just moved in with the president of the United States. The dog is going to say, `Who fulfilled my needs from day one, so who should I trust from day one?'” Millan said.

Bo’s breeder, Martha Stern of Boyd, Texas, said she doesn’t consider Bo a rescued dog. Owners of dogs from the kennel she and her husband run must sign contracts requiring them to return the dogs to the Sterns if they do not work out, she said. Bo went from his first home, in Washington, to the Kennedys’ trainer in Virginia, and now to the White House, she said.

Portuguese water dogs aren’t for everyone, Stern said. Known as PWDs, they tend to be high-energy “in-your-face” dogs that need a lot of attention, and their curly coats require a lot of maintenance, she said.

Stern said the first family did a lot of research and already knew the breed’s pros and cons, and that Victoria Kennedy was closely involved. Bo seemed like a good fit because the Obamas are an active family and have the resources to give him the training and other things he needs, Stern said.

“I wouldn’t say he’s excessively high in energy,” she said, but still a “little bit more than middle-of-the-road.”

“On a scale of five, he’s probably about three,” Stern said.

The dog’s non-shedding coat also makes him a good choice, given Malia Obama’s allergies.

Stern worries that puppy mills will try to capitalize on the Obamas’ dog choice and start churning out PWDs for an eager public. It’s the responsibility of good Portuguese water dog breeders to try to prevent that, she said.

As for Bo, he has already been neutered, Mrs. Obama’s spokeswoman said.

___

Portuguese Water Dog Club of America: http://www.pwdca.org/

The Humane Society of the United States: http://www.hsus.org/

---

Special Olympics Remark Not Biggest Problem Disabled Have w/Obama

13.2% Unemployment Rate Shows Bowling Is Not Pres. Obama’s Biggest Problem With Disabled Americans

By Roy Beck, Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 10:54 AM

Pres. Obama supposedly got into hot water with disabled Americans last week when he made a joke about his bowling skills and Special Olympics to Jay Leno. But his true insult to the handicapped was his insistence last week on keeping 7 million jobs (currently held by illegal aliens) out of reach. The first-ever official unemployment rate report on the disabled tells the story (and my handicapped wife has a story, too) . . .

American adults with physical handicaps are among the worst victims of the federal government’s insistence on importing 138,000 new foreign workers each month — and of Pres. Obama’s and congressional leadership’s continued pressure for an amnesty to allow an estimated 7 million illegal aliens to permanently keep U.S. jobs.

Official unemployment for disabled Americans stands at 13.2%.

The government reported that was 59% higher than the official unemployment rate for non-disabled Americans for the same period.

You can be sure that the 13.2% gravely underestimates the lack of employment opportunities for the handicapped because that only counts the handicapped who are actively looking for a job and can’t find one. The majority of all Americans who don’t have a job are not counted in the unemployment figures because they have left the labor force entirely, either willingly or because of discouragement. You can imagine how much more quickly a person with disabilities loses the will and energy to continue futilely seeking a job and, thus, stops being counted as unemployed.

When the New York Times or the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or any of dozens of nationally prominent leaders cry out for amnesty, they are stating their preference for hiring illegal foreign workers over disabled Americans.

A PERSONAL DISABILITY STORY

My wife Shirley has been handicapped since she had an onset of multiple sclerosis in 1974.

Shirley is fortunate to have had a good education (University of Missouri) and profession (physical therapy). As the disease took away her ability to walk and many other things, she put in an elevator and created a clinic in our home and downsized most of her patients (treating mainly babies and children). Through use of ingenuity, mechanical devices, incredible will and often the assistance of patients’ family, she continues to run a bustling pediatric therapy practice.

But even physical therapists aren’t immune from being undermined by immigration policies. Nearly every year, various Members of Congress fight to import larger quantities of foreign physical therapists rather than support expansion of U.S. PT schools to train the long backlogs of American students who are desperate to learn the profession.

My main point, however, is not about Shirley, but about her patients.

Anybody can have a child born with a disability.

When you look into the faces of the parents of Shirley’s patients — when you see the arduous devotion required of them to help their children achieve levels of self-sufficiency and personal fulfillment — you know that one of the most important goals for the end of the long effort into adulthood needs to be . . .

. . . a job.

A certain percentage of these disabled members of our national community will be fortunate like Shirley and be able to compete at a professional level. But a disproportionate number of them will need more routine jobs. Many of those jobs are disproportionately held by foreign workers — especially illegal aliens at clerk stations, in the parking garage booths, in myriad tasks that do not require much mobility.

Last week, Pres. Obama promised full inclusiveness for disabled Americans and also promised that he will work diligently this very year to keep an estimated 7 million U.S. jobs filled with illegal foreign workers. On balance, this was not good news in the pediatric physical therapy units across America.

FOREIGN LABOR ESPECIALLY DISADVANTAGES THE DISABLED

All other things being equal, do you suppose an employer is going to prefer a disabled American or a strong-bodied, young foreign worker?

It is difficult enough to first of all find jobs in which a disability does not have to prevent the worker from performing up to standard. Secondly, it is difficult for the disabled to get past many employers’ natural qualms about hiring them.

But the federal government’s immigration policies may be the greatest handicap of all that disabled Americans must surmount.

With the federal government opening massive floodgates of foreign workers since 1990, it is no surprise that the employment dreams entailed in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 have been largely unconsummated. Pres. George H.W. Bush signed that act but also signed another bill that drastically increased the flow of foreign labor to compete with the disabled Americans trying to become fully productive members of society.

Since then, Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and now Obama have done everything possible with immigration policies to keep disabled Americans out of the job market by pushing foreign workers in front of them in line.

OBAMA’S DISCONNECTED COMPASSIONS

Before going on Leno’s show, Pres. Obama probably was sincere in an exchange with a handicapped American man, according to the Washington Post:

During a town hall forum in Los Angeles earlier in the day, a disabled man told Obama ‘about the true renaissance that’s happening’ among people with physical disabilities, asking the president how “your disability agenda will release this emerging potential that’s currently wasted and untapped?’

‘Well, you are exactly right that we need everybody,’ Obama responded. ‘And every program that we have has to be thinking on the front end how do we make sure that it is inclusive and building into it our ability to draw on the capacities of persons with disabilities.’

Mr. Obama, when you say “every program,” you obviously do not include your immigration programs. Are your immigration programs making sure that the nation does its best to use the talents of the disabled members of our national community?

No.

And you are wrong to say that “we need everybody.” Because of your predecessors’ — and now your — immigration policies, the employers of America most definitely do NOT need our handicapped fellow citizens. The official unemployment rate makes that clear.

As usual, Pres. Obama shows no sign of understanding that foreign workers compete for jobs with Americans. He seems to regard immigration as some form of human rights, civil rights or global humanitarianism program that has no impact on the labor market.

He may be sincere in that ignorance, but that sincere ignorance is devastating to the American households who are without a job because of our immigration programs.

As a result, Mr. Obama continues to appear willing to perpetuate immigration policies that are profoundly anti-humanitarian, anti-justice and anti-mercy. He did not create them. But he is now the Change President who refuses to change these destructive policies.

SHIRLEY BEAT THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN BOWLING

With all the photos and news stories about the President’s bowling prowess the last few days, our family decided to celebrate Shirley’s birthday last night with several hours at the bowling alley.

With family holding her up, Shirley double-pumped all her own throws at the foul line. Her immediate goal was to beat Mr. Obama’s celebrated outing before the Pennsylvania Primary last year when he quit after bowling a 37 through seven frames (a pace for a 53 game). Shirley got close with a 52 the first game, fell short the second and then ended with a triumphant 87.

That was still short of the 129 that the President says he recently achieved at the White House lanes, but I’m sure Shirley would be happy to try a direct competition at the White House and to compete without a scoring handicap — as long as Mr. Obama would remove the immigration handicap from the job market for disabled Americans.

The Democrats AIG Bonus Scam

How is it that lying to congress is a federal offense, but congress lying to the American people is no problem at all? At the very least all of these clowns are guilty of impeachable offenses of lying to their employers (that’s US!). Actually, following the Democrat-set precedent of the Scooter Libby trial, they are guilty of criminal offenses that should land them all in jail. The Democrats lead by Obama are destroying truth, real justice, and personal responsibility in America. They, along with the Democrats posing as Republicans, all need to go to jail for their contributions to the destruction of America.

The Dems’ AIG Bonus Scam

by Fred J. Eckert (more by this author)
Posted 03/24/2009 ET
Updated 03/25/2009 ET

The Democratic Congress put on quite a show for us last week (and this week may top last).

In a memorable performance, they feigned surprise and shock that $165 million of taxpayers’ dollars were spent on bonuses for executives of the failed insurance giant AIG.

“If they don’t give the money back, we will put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so that it is returned to its rightful owners — the taxpayers,” New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer fumed in a Senate speech. “So, to those of you getting these bonuses, be forewarned: you will not keep them.”

It was a scene reminiscent of the one in the movie Casablanca in which Captain Renault tells Rick he is closing down his saloon down because, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here” as a casino worker hands Renault a wad of money and says, “Your winnings, sir.”

Schumer knows perfectly well that this $165 million for AIG executive bonuses is something he voted for just a few weeks earlier.

The same is true of each of the other ten Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have joined Schumer in signing a letter making the same threat he announced in his floor remarks.

It’s a farce — a sham.

What’s going on here is that the news media finally got around to mentioning that this $165 million for bonuses is part of the more than $170 billion of taxpayer money that Congress and President Obama insisted must be awarded in haste to the failed insurance giant American International Group, Inc (AIG). The public, understandably, is really angry.

So the Democrats are terrified that the public might actually start figuring out what an incredibly incompetent job President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are doing.

What if average citizens begin asking themselves the sort of questions that the Democrats can depend on the mainstream media to cover for them by not asking? Questions such as,

• Why was Congress so reckless in writing the bailout legislation that it didn’t include limitations to preclude waste such as those big bonuses?
• Anyone who reads the news knows that the financial markets are truly global. When writing the legislation, Congress had to know that AIG would pass billions of U.S. tax dollars to foreign banks. Why didn’t Congress make that contingent on equal or greater contributions by foreign governments? Why are the French, the Germans and the British having their banks rescued by American taxpayers?
• What other questionable expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars are buried in the barrels of billions the Democrats are rush delivering to seemingly anyone who puts his hand out? Weren’t there better alternatives than simply giving away taxpayers’ billions to anyone and everyone who got into severe trouble by taking reckless risks? Why no public hearings on this?
• Was the main reason for such a great rush to avoid close scrutiny of where the money was going? How many so-called “stimulus” expenditures are really nothing but gigantic rewards to political allies?

What the Democrats decided is that they needed a stunt to divert attention away from their stunning incompetence.

So, last week, the House voted to “take back” those contractually obligated bonuses, and the Democratic leadership has promised that the Senate will do the same this week. This is not a comedy the Democrats are performing for us — it’s a tragedy.

Equally tragic is the blatant disrespect for the Constitution of the United States that is on display throughout these shenanigans. Article 6 of the Constitution requires that the President and Member of Congress swear to support the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t require them to understand it or even to read it, but let’s give the driving force behind this sham, Chuck Schumer, the benefit of the doubt and presume he has read it. He is, after all, a graduate of Harvard Law School, a member of the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, and was a member of the Judiciary Committee when he served in the House.

Schumer knows better — and so should every member of Congress and the President. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution prohibits what they are doing because it specifies that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” And what they are doing constitutes a bill of attainder.

As the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution says, “In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death…,” but the Supreme Court — going back to a case in 1810 — reads the Constitutional bar to prevent legislative confiscation of property.

As James Madison explained in The Federalist Papers No. 44: “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principle of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

Freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are the only individual rights which the Framers deemed so important as to insert in the original document protection against both federal and state infringement.

In 1965, in United States vs. Brown, the Supreme Court once again affirmed that the purpose of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 is to prohibit “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.”

The position of the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has been that this clause of the Constitution is deemed violated if 1) The legislation in question specifies a specific group; 2) It includes some form of punishment; and 3) It does not include a judicial trial.

One, two, three — guilty on each count. Which means that what’s coming next is that the Supreme Court will give thumbs down to their pathetic pretense. And then they will feign surprise and say they tried. Trying to con the American people into believing they have nothing to do with something the public is incensed about — that’s what this big charade is really all about.

This sham is an affront to the Constitution of the United States by the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States. They are violating the solemn oath they took to bear “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution — and by doing this, they are guilty of neglecting to “well and faithfully discharge” the duties of their offices.

Many of them don’t know what they are doing.

Many of them know but don’t care.

That’s how bad things are in Washington right now.

It’s change, all right — an appalling change from what the Founders of the American Republic had in mind for governing this great country.

Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican Congressman from New York and twice served as a US Ambassador under President Reagan, who called him �a good friend and valuable advisor.�