Obama's Vacation Reading List

Matthew Continetti, over at The Weekly Standard, is wondering what book Obama might take to Martha's Vineyard this summer.

I'm not sure how fast a reader Obama is; is he a one book a year kind of guy or is he a voracious reader like his predecessor?  

I can make some suggestions.

He might try After America by Mark Steyn.  I'm reading it now and can't get past page 35 because I stop every so often to exclaim loudly:  "Brilliant!  This is brilliant!!!"


Obama might also consider The Coming Collapse of the American Republic by veteran and former state senator Robert A. Hall as a companion to Steyn's book.

I hear Dick Cheney has a new memoir coming out:  In My Time; I bet Obama could get an advance copy.

If he's looking for a bargain, Obama might pick up a copy of Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption.  It's out in paperback now and he might learn something about those folks working for him.

Just my suggestions.

You have any ideas?

The Search for Marizela

Michelle Malkin's cousin is still missing.  Please continue to spread the word and keep the search alive.  I can't imagine the torment the family must be going through.  Visit Michelle's site for updates and here is the pertinent information once again:

MISSING PERSON

Name: Marizela Perez

Date Missing: Saturday March 5, 2011

Last Seen: 1-2 P.M. at the Safeway in University District
(4732 Brooklyn Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105) (this is CONFIRMED)

Possible Routes: Sound Link Light Rail stations, downtown/Chinatown areas, UW Seattle campus, U-district

Description – Asian female, 5’5” tall, 110 lbs, skinny build, asymmetrical bob with short bangs and brown/red highlights hairstyle, tattoo on left inner arm with the words ‘lahat ay magiging maayos’ (Tagalog, meaning ‘all will be well’), last seen wearing a dark hooded jacket, denim jeans, light brown suede laced boots, possibly wearing green eye contacts, possibly carrying a denim drawstring bag with rainbow butterfly screenprint (not the plaid backpack that was before mentioned) with a Macbook Pro laptop, taking medication for depression
Please contact if you have any information regarding this person:

Edgar: 609 – 646 – 0905
Jasmin: 609 – 742 – 2360
Mel: 206 – 760 – 1822
Joy: 609 – 742 – 2336

Have Some More Coffee and Read These Links

Here are some quick links for you this morning:

A must-read is this post at The Foundry regarding the unconstitutionality of the Nebraska Compromise. The Attorneys General of 13 states have written a letter to Nancy Pelosi in protest:

The deal is said to involve an agreement that the Federal Government’s taxpayers will assume indefinitely the full share of the costs that Nebraska will incur as the result of the expansion of Medicaid that is one of the Act’s effects. The result is not only preferential treatment for Nebraska but it also hurts the rest of us because the other States will have to make up the difference. Such preferential treatment is constitutionally suspect; it cannot be reconciled with several important principles incorporated in the Constitution. The Founders would not have dreamed of taking a burden that all of the States should share and allocating it to only some of them. Likewise, they would not have seen the spending of taxpayer money for the benefit of only one State to be in the general interest.


Professor Jacobson reports that Scott Brown is shaking things up in MA:

Rasmussen is the first major polling organization to poll the Massachusetts Senate special election, and the "pre-released" poll numbers show Martha Coakley (D) with just a 9% lead over Scott Brown (R), which would be consistent with other polls. This post will be updated with further analysis once the official numbers are released. [See Update No. 2 below - official results released - Brown within 2% among people who definitely will vote and has a large lead among indepenents.]


William Murchison questions whether or not Obama really understands the war on terror:

Why is the government decanting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab into the civilian justice system after he tried to destroy an airliner filled with innocent passengers? Why are we affording this enemy agent the legal protections that obtain in a land he wants to destroy? The administration is going to answer for this one, with volume turned up.

Andy McCarthy exercises some caution on the decision to uphold the conviction of Moussaoui:

The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and sentence of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Enthusiasts of the law-enforcement approach to terrorism will undoubtedly claim this development as more evidence that their strategy works. To the contrary, I have argued several times (see, e.g., here and here) that we dodged a bullet with Moussaoui — i.e., if he had not surprised everyone by pleading guilty, if he had instead insisted on proceeding with his trial (not just the penalty phase but the guilt phase), the case might well have ended disastrously.

And finally, Michelle Malkin is all over the upcoming health care debate, including C-SPAN's request that they be allowed to televise deliberations.

Obamacare For Illegals - Part 2

Just as I predicted back in July, the administration is beginning to unfold a plan in which illegals will be covered by Obamacare by ... you guessed it - becoming legal.

Via TPMDC:

Lawmakers who want to extend health coverage to illegal immigrants will not block the passage of the final health care reform bill so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year. ****

Democratic leadership aides believe that a firm White House promise of a comprehensive immigration bill will be enough to quell any House dissent.

TPMDC sources have been telling us that members won't admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill. Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written.

A source familiar with the negotiations between Congress and the White House told TPMDC the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will demand an agreement from Obama that health care coverage for illegals who earn a path to citizenship will be addressed in an immigration bill.

Back in July when I wrote about this it was pretty clear that this was in the cards. In an interview with Katie Couric in July, Obama said, "First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don't have illegal immigrants," he said. "And we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that."

You always have to read between the lines with Obama; it's not necessarily what he says but what he doesn't say that you have to worry about. There was never anything in the original House bill to keep illegals from getting coverage; oh the bill SAID no coverage for illegals, but the provision to verify whether or not someone is a legal resident was shot down. A loophole was born.

Allahpundit's insight:

Newsflash for the left: Amnesty’s not going to pass in this political climate if it couldn’t pass in 2007, so either this is all an elaborate kabuki aimed at tactfully caving on benefits for illegals or the CHC is a really, really cheap date. As for the right, if this sounds familiar it’s because The One has been hinting at doing it for at least four months.

And here is what Michelle Malkin wrote in July (and she linked me!).

So, Obama looks right at the American people in numerous speeches and town halls and says illegals will not be covered under this plan. It's sort of like when he said you can keep your current insurance. It's just not exactly true. It's bending and shading the truth. How are we supposed to trust him? Answer? You can't.

Via: Memeorandum

The Kevin Jennings FISTGATE Story Hits the Media

Michelle Malkin was on Hannity last night to talk about Kevin Jennings and his advocating porn as safe-reading for school children. I'm encouraged that this story is getting out into the main media now and not restricted to conservative blogs. The Washington Times had an editorial about it yesterday which you can read here. There is also a report that Congressman Burgess has written to Obama calling for him to remove Jennings from his job.



Keep up the pressure. This man is not appropriate for this job. Michelle Malkin has contact information for the corporations that support GLSEN, the organization founded by Jennings and which advocates this "safe-school" pornography, including news that GLSEN distributed a guide to "black-leather bars" to teens during one GLSEN conference.

Email: Kevin.Jennings@ed.gov

Email: Arne.Duncan@ed.gov

Currently Ranked #48 on Amazon...

Oh holy cow, I saw this on Michelle Malkin's site and thought it was one of those PhotoShop jokes.

It's for real.

On Amazon the book is currently ranked #48. It has 7 five star reviews and 10 one star reviews although not all of those folks have actually read the book. You have to take those reviews with a grain of salt.

Of course, the title is what loses me. Help Obama Change America? I don't want him to "change America." And certainly not the way HE wants to change it.

Ah well. His followers will buy it. They'll put it on their shelves next to his Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. If you look at the recommendations from Amazon paired with this book, customers also bought Ted Kennedy's memoir and Deepak Chopra's book.

Of course, currently ranked number one on the NYT Best Seller list is still Culture of Corruption.

Public Option Ploy

Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius floated the suggestion that maybe a public option wasn't exactly necessary after all; late Sunday, administration officials say she misspoke.

Obama has been loudly in favor of the public option from the beginning and has made no secret about his perception of its importance.

Michelle Malkin today suggests that Kathleen Sebelius did NOT misspeak, that she was intentionally floating a trial balloon of compromise to guage the backlash from the left. I'm siding with Malkin on this one; I don't think Obama will EVER back down from the public option because that's why he's pushing this so hard. He's devoting an inordinate amount of time on ObamaCare right now. Certainly there are other things he could be spending his time on.

No, no. He wants the public option.

American Thinker has a scorecard of tactics today, if you're losing count of all the different ploys Team Obama is using to get this pushed through. The Sebelius "misstatement" would likely come under number 8:

8. Pretend to give up on controversial issues that were never acknowledged in the first place. We've heard that the alleged Senate bill has omitted the controversial "death committee" provision that was never acknowledged to have existed in the first place. This offers the illusion of compromise.

Sit back and see what today's spin will be.

Michelle Malkin on The View

Watching Michelle Malkin on The View today was painful; not because of Michelle, but because these women are so vile! Via Hot Air:



Everyone is entitled to their opinions, of course. Most of those women support Team Obama and that's their prerogative. No problem there. But Joy Behar's sneering, smirking, and interruptions only make her look petty. Sherri, as ill-informed as she is, at least framed her questions in such a way as to feign politeness.

Michelle was 12 seconds into her first sentence before Joy interrupted her to clarify the Tom Daschle botched nomination. "What botched nomination, what are you talking about?" Has she seriously never heard about the failed Dashcle nomination? Michelle lays out the Daschle debacle for Joy who then responds with a snide, "And there weren't people like that in the Bush administration? I'm just wondering."

It went downhill from there, but Malkin held her ground and did a good job. The audience even applauded at the end when it was announced that they would all be getting a copy of Michelle's book; I don't know how many will actually read it, but it's nice that they get the opportunity. Joy clearly didn't read it. She said she read "a few pages" but that probably included the title page and the copyright information. Maybe the table of contents.

All Behar could come up with against Michelle was Bush. Bush was corrupt, he lied, he took us into an unnecessary war; Sherri helps out with the info that Bush never "fixed the trailers" after Katrina. WTF?

Liberals like Behar would do well to reform their tactics, I think. Using the Blame Bush strategy doesn't even work for Obama. At some point in this presidency, and now is as good a time as any, liberals and Obama are going to have to own this. Michelle does a good job in forcing that point with her book.

Michelle on Today

Via Hot Air, watch this clip of Michelle Malkin and Matt Lauer. Classic.



I'll say this; Malkin's book is documented with 75 pages of notes. It's meticulously researched. Lauer looks horrified at what Malkin says during the interview but she's got the facts behind her.

Obama's Bizarre Czars

In Michelle Malkin's new book, Culture of Corruption, Chapter Five is called "Backroom Buddies: Dancing with the Czars." We already know that Obama has more czars in his White House that anyone ever before. He wasn't the first president to have czars, but he's the first to have so many.

After so many boondoggles and failures in his initial Cabinet picks, which require Senate confirmation, Obama resorted to the czar method as the czars need no such arduous vetting process to achieve their position. As Malkin writes, "The nomination process has proved to be a dangerous landmine for one too many Obama picks."

Had we had the benefit of that vetting process, maybe Obama's science czar, John P. Holdren, would have blissfully fallen by the wayside. He's the one that said this:

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

and this:

“Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

Kathy Shaidle points to this quote in which Holdren advocates a campagin to de-develop the United States: “De-development, means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation. By de-development, we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”

Amanda Carpenter of the Washington Times contacted Holdren's staff for a statement on these remarks and was told, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization."

So does that mean that Holdren no longer believes that children must be "socialized" before they become "human beings?" Or that population control is critical to the survival of the planet? Or is it that he believes it and just doesn't think it's the "proper role of government" to advocate these positions?

Some in Washington believe that czars should undergo Senate confirmation given the power they hold. Quite often their power overlaps with other appointed positions, for example, in writing about Urban Czar Adolfo Carrion, Malkin writes, "But doesn't the president already have a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development? Why, yes. Yes, he does." Nancy-Ann DeParle is the "health czar" but Kathleen Sebelius is is over HHS (the post that Daschle was initially appointed). Redundant?

The problem with the czars is that they don't get that vetting process which revealed the tax problems of Geithner and Daschle, or the ethics problems of Bill Richardson.

Had John P. Holdren been made to go through the vetting process and Senate confirmation, would he still have obtained such a position of power?

And aren't many of these czar positions redundant? Are their salaries seriously that necessary?
How many more czars are we going to have before it's all over?

I guess the next one will be a "Race Czar." If he starts looking for a "Beer Czar", I'm in.

Shhhhhhhh!

Sorry for the light blogging today, but I'm reading. Michelle's book came out today.

She's got an entire chapter on the Michelle Obama patient dumping story, she mentions Robert Stacy McCain, and fills you in on all the players in the Obama White House. Good stuff!

Heartache!

Update: It's fixed now. Whew. Welcome Malkin readers!

I get my first Michelle Malkin link EVER and the link doesn't work!!!!!!!!! It's for this post.

Heartache.

Everybody's Talking About.....Neil Barofsky?

Robert Stacy McCain has a fine piece at The American Spectator this morning about the Inspector General mess - and make no mistake, it's a MESS. You need to read the whole thing.

One of the many things that concerns me about this story is that were it not for people like Stacy, Malkin, York and other diligent bloggers, it would likely be swept under the rug. There's just so much else to talk about! Mark Sanford! Everyone loves a good sex scandal! An Argentina love affair with titillating emails! Sex sells, and that's what will be all over the news today.

The health care boondoggle. After last night's infomercial the analysts and pundits are all over it. Everyone has an opinion or an experience to share on the health care issue. It affects everyone in the country. Everyone wants to talk about it.

Cap and Trade? Not EVERYone is talking about it, but they should be. The vote is tomorrow so there will be lots of conversation about it today, as there should be, and people need to be calling their representatives. This one is a back breaker for the country. It's important.

And Iran - oh god - Iran. Those courageous people dying in the streets for their freedom. There's plenty to talk about there.

And everyone is talking about Jon and Kate.

So you can see where some fired inspector generals will be pushed to the back burner were it not for Robert Stacy McCain, Byron York, Michelle Malkin, and a few others who are all doing their best to keep it out there. To make my case, the top threads at Memeorandum this morning - the Sanford story, the Iran story, and health care. At the time of this writing, there is NOTHING on the inspectors general story. (UPDATE: There is a Memeorandum thread now!)

So why is it important? As McCain said, it's not just about Gerald Walpin. He's the most well known of those fired so far, but probably only because he's the one that Team Obama said was demented and senile. Also, Glenn Beck had Walpin on his program (and he didn't seem senile at all!) which increases the name recognition.

What makes this story important is first of all the serious nature of the inspector general position - they are supposed to be INDEPENDENT, non-partisan watchdogs. Now we have the Obama administration playing hardball with them in a way that indicates a pattern of behavior and this is certainly troubling.

McCain points out that "Those familiar with the investigations (and yes, that noun is plural) caution against personalizing or politicizing the situation. These sources are especially concerned that inquiries by Republican members of Congress should not be portrayed as a partisan "gotcha" game against the popular new president." Indeed, an important point to make. And maybe it's why the media isn't making a bigger deal of it.

Walpin, as you know by now, was fired because he questioned a program affilitaed with San Francisco Mayor Kevin Johnson regarding the AmeriCorps money. Kevin Johnson is a longtime ally of Obama and a friend of Michelle's. Johnson had been accused of inappropriately using funds which he later agreed to pay back in part. But now the FBI is in the investigation over some e-mails that Johnson supposedly deleted. Now, that's incriminating, no? Possibly? Suspicious, to say the least.

Other players include Judith Gwynn, inspector general for the ITC, who was fired. She was attempting to conduct an audit and documents she needed were forcibly taken from her, thereby prohibiting her from doing her job.

Fred Wiederhold, Jr., inspector general for Amtrack; he unexpectedly resigned. He was asked to provide examples of agency interference; there are some odd connections there in that you should look at (it's outlined in the McCain piece), not the least of which is that Joe Biden's son is on the Amtrak board of directors. Not to say that he's done anything wrong, but it's a tangled web.

Neil Barofsky is another investigator general, and the one that most fascinates McCain; he's over the TARP money that went through Congress in October. Documents have been withheld from Barofsky thus strangling his ability to do his job. He has reported a "staggering" level of fraud, but how can he make the case without the necessary documents? And what is Geithner afraid of?

The Wall Street Journal has a piece today in which they point out that had these incidents occured under the Bush White House, it would be front page news:

"However unserious these nanoscandals were, given their animating impulse Mr. Walpin's sacking and now the challenge to Mr. Barofsky's autonomy would be front-page news had Mr. Bush pulled them off. But the administration has gotten away with waving off the Barofsky affair as trivial and smearing Mr. Walpin as an old coot."

They go on to point out that Obama co-sponsored the legislation that gave the IGs their power in the first place and established the rules of their office: "Mr. Obama professed to love the Inspectors General as a Senator, and he cosponsored legislation that bolstered their autonomy and required the president to give Congress a month's notice and a reason before firing an IG. Either the administration ought to abide by its own rules or get rid of the office."

It is difficult to separate the story from Team Obama completely, as the previously noted cautionary statment wished. It's true that this should not be a witchhunt, or a "gotcha" game against Obama; it's not that different than the many scandals that come out of Washington all the time - Travel Gate, Whitewater, etc. etc. This one seems important because it directly involves taxpayer dollars and it has nasty overtones such as the smearing of Walpin while covering up the bad behavior of long-time cronies (Johnson). Michelle Malkin has pointed to the puzzling involvement of Michelle Obama in this particular case.

Is it all politics as usual or is there more? McCain is quick to point out that this is definitely a "story" and not necesarily a "scandal" or a "crime" at this point, but it's true that there are multiple investigations going on and as a "story" it should be more widely reported.

DHS and Rightwing Extremists

Michelle Malkin has confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report issued on 4/7 on Rightwing Extremism is for real. At first she thought it might be a joke.

The report is all over the news today and it truly is quite incredible. Consider this excerpt (via Michelle):

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

I can go along with the identification of hate groups. We all know who they are and the damage they cause. But to label those that are "antigovernment" or those that favor states authority as "rightwing extremists" is incredible.

Law Professor William Jacobson's response to this passage points out that "This definition is so broad as to include anyone who seeks to preserve the foundation of our federal-state constitutional distinction, under the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), because such a person could be deemed to 'reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.'"

It gets worse. Consider this passage - this is the one that really got me [emphasis mine]:

"Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers."

This passage made my blood run cold. If you dislike the President's policys you are now an extremist? And could "expanded propaganda campaigns" be referring to the Tea Parties? Just maybe? What a coincidence that this report just came out. As far as the "restrictions on firearms ownership and use" goes, last time I checked, the Second Amendment was still intact.

And be aware of this passage:

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.
In other words, they're looking for you.

According to this document, if you exercise your right of free speech you are likely to be labeled an extremist. Everyone at the Tea Parties tomorrow will be labeled extremists. Now, we all know what extremists really are. I'd say the Weather Underground was an extremist group, for example. Animal rights groups that bomb labs would be extremists.

If I disagree with funding in the Omnibus bill of tatoo removal for gang members, or for the federal government funding promotion of astronomy in Hawaii, or even funding LaRaza (speaking of extrmists) then I'm the one that should be viewed with suspicion. Got it.

It's quite an incredible document. Michelle has the PDF and Legal Insurrection has more analysis. Critical Narrative also has analysis. American Power suggests that the White House will need to do some damage control on this one, and predicts a larger groundswell of mobilization in the days to come.

Update: The American Legion responds (h/t: Hot Air and Michelle Malkin)

Collins Admires Obama's "Cool"

We had a great weekend; we went to Dallas to visit my daughter and to take The Teenager to a Mavs/Suns game. It was his first NBA game and he's a huge Steve Nash fan. The weather was great and we went out to eat and a couple of wonderful restaurants. My daughter and her husband were lovely and gracious hosts and had we really didn't want to leave. And the good news is that I will be back in June to GO SEE ERIC CLAPTON! (I'm sorry, I'll quit screaming about it sometime soon.)

At any rate, I fell out of the news loop for 36 hours or so and in today's world, well, almost anything can happen. In the car on the way over (I wasn't driving) I read the Gail Collins Op-Ed in the NYTimes entitled "Barack's Continental Coolness" and rather wish I hadn't. It is certainly another contender for Malkin's Drool Bucket Award, getting close to, but not quite achieving the level of last month's Jack Cafferty Drool Bucket Award.

Collins actually lost me in her second sentence when she said, "...let's agree that the Obamas wowed them in Europe." Let's not. I'm not convinced that they were all "wowed" and Collins offers no evidence of this, so let's agree to disagree on that one, Ms. Collins, and move on.

She then continues with the Bush-Bashing -- will it EVER stop? -- when she says "...the previous administration set the bar so low that Barack was able to get hysterical applause just by telling a crowd of students that American's don't believe in torturing people." She is referring to the town-hall style meeting Friday in Strasbourg which was packed with a favorable, hand-picked audience by the Atlantic Youth Council.

And of course, our European friends who are so anxious for us to close Gitmo have volunteered to take how many of those enemy combatants? I lost count at two.

Collins wrote, "Back home, we're just grateful that we don't have to sit on the edge of our collective seats wondering how the president wil embarrass us next." This was only the fourth sentence of the article and Collins managed to Bash-Bush twice so far. But seriously, was Collins not embarrased at all by Obama's deep bow to the Saudi king? Or his tepid response to the North Korean missile launch? She wasn't embarassed by him giving Queen Elizabeth an iPod loaded with his own speeches and a mix of show tunes? She wasn't embarrased when he got off track on the Telepromter and was literally speechless? I was.

No, Collins was impressed by his "cool." And by the fact that "Obama was the most popular guy in the gang." She points out that he knows the difference between Australia and Austria -- the only problem with that is that he didn't know Austrian isn't a language.

Collins then continues to gush over Michelle and Carla going "outfit-to-outfit" and how they both had bows on their coats. To her credit, Collins admits the fashion fuss is a bit much, but notes that it did take our minds off losing our jobs and our terrible economic situation for a little while. Thank goodness for that.

After all the Bush-Bashing and Obamagasms, Collins finally gets around to bashing Republicans in general by taking note of Friday night's congressional action on the budget resolution. She disparages the estate tax agreement as a move that would "increase the deficit while stimulating the economy approximately as much as eliminating a sales tax on square potato chips."

Note to Ms. Collins: Did you read the Porkulus bill? Or the Omnibus bill? No? I didn't think so. Neither did Congress, but neither of those do much economic stimulating either.

So if this is the kind of news I missed by being out of the loop for 36 hours, I might plan another road trip sooner than I thought. My next "road trip" is to the garbage can where I will put Ms. Collins latest column.

More Pork, Please

Ray Charles and "Here We Go Again" is the theme music for this post.

Congress is preparing to lay their new $410 spending bill on us as the new budget cycle begins. Republicans are deriding the bill as "the cherry on the stimulus sundae" but you can be sure they have their own earmarks in this one as well.

The budget process begins Thursday as Obama releases his 2010 budget plan. On top of the Porkulus bill, this might truly be too much to take!

Last night Michelle Malkin posted a link to Capitol Hill staffer Tom Jones and his twittering of the bill; he's going through it with a fine tooth comb and identifying the pork.

Some of his findings?

awesome $200K #pork for "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" amazing. $$$ to get rid of gang tats. pg283

$5.8M earmark for "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate... for the planning and design of a building & an endowment" p.232

omnibus has $95,000 earmark to "combat obesity" - how about less pork?

earmark to the stars?? $2M for "for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii" Really? pg. 332

National Council of LaRaza gets $473,000 earmark in #omnibus from Sens. Bingamen and Menendez

Follow his twitters and see what he finds today!