USpolitical.com

A great segment of video showing Rand Paul blast Kathleen Hogan, a deputy assistant at the Energy Department. He outlines the hypocrisy of those that fiercely advocate a woman’s right to choose, yet support restrictions that force compact fluorescent light bulbs and low capacity toilets upon consumers.

While I’m sure all conservation policies are not a bad thing, I am still confused why we would do away with harmless (but inefficient) light bulbs in favor of twirled tubes full of toxic mercury vapor. And put them in every home in America.

You would think this conservation crowd would have warmed up to nuclear power already.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/23/pistole.threat.delay/index.html

“Frankly it just came down to the fact there was not a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed administrator in place until I was confirmed at the end of June to make a really significant decision like that, that would have impact on a number of people,” Pistole said. “That was a big part of it.”

TSA Director Pistole is basically telling us that the White House was so inept in responding to the threat of underwear bombers, that it took the actual confirmation of a TSA director over 7 months later to then begin the process of implementing the pat downs, which wouldn’t take effect until another 3 months later.

So this Christmas, if you’re flying, as we celebrate the 1 year anniversary foiling of the “Underwear Bomber,” we can also join hands in celebrating the 2 month anniversary of nationwide pat downs.

Obama seeks bipartisan support for infrastructure upgrade

What in the world was the stimulus for?  I thought we were pushing so many jobs out the door with that thing, our infrastructure was going to be sparkling by the end of Obama’s presidency.

Best part of the announcement?

Obama and LaHood said the cost of new investment would be paid for, rather than adding to the debt. However, LaHood stopped short of offering specific ways to do so, saying only that a number of options were being considered.

New video from Eric Cantor on deficit spending.

This isn’t the best video I’ve ever seen on the subject, but it is certainly a step in the right direction of providing informative content on budget deficits from democrats.

Great video about what $1.4 trillion can buy.

Sure,there were bailouts this year, but why is the deficit expected to remain the same next year?  Anyone realize how bizarre it is that Obama was championing a halving of the deficit by the end of his first term?

Hate tip: Ed Morrissey

Hardly know what to say about this post on WhiteHouse.gov.

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

My email response to flag@whitehouse.gov:

from    Ryan Farnes
to    flag@whitehouse.gov
date    Fri, Aug 7, 2009

subject    Really?

The White House is asking citizens to report on chain emails and word of mouth?

My opinion of fishy?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Ryan Farnes

Energy Czar Carole Browner, responsible for the Executive Branch’s “Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy,” has not read the bill that passed the House of Representatives in its entirety.

Hat tip: Townhall.com’s Greg Hengler

President Obama will challenge the cabinet to find ways to save $100 million dollars over the next 90 days.  Yeah, you may need to read that again to be sure you saw “$100 million” correctly.  At this rate, we’ll be saving $400 million a year, while we spend beyond our means in excess of 1,000 times that much every year through 2019 according to President Obama’s budget request in PDF.  That isn’t the money from taxes I’m talking about, that is money we don’t have that we’re spending.  And 1,000 times is actually a floor that Obama’s proposed budget never intends to reach, it is projected to always be higher.  So unless the savings he is going to challenge the cabinet for the other 275 days a years adds up to something way more substantial, this is as ridiculous as it sounds.

President Obama is proposing more deficit spending than President Bush ever did, yet the Obama administration is going to try to sell fiscal responsibility?

A senior administration official described the edict as part of Obama’s “commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending” and “reform the government.”

It seems a poor trick, a ploy.  But at least we get some humor, as sad as it is from this.  Wait until you read what some of the departments are proposing.

The Department of Homeland Security’s plan to save an estimated $52 million over five years by purchasing office supplies in bulk.

The Department of Agriculture’s effort to consolidate 1,500 employees from seven locations into a single facility in 2011. It’s estimated to save $62 million over a 15-year lease.

We have been holding the private sector’s feet to the fire as the robber barons of this recession, while those that run the federal government give us little faith that they have any idea what they’re doing with our money.  The Department of Homeland Security has been around for years, part of a federal government that has been around even longer, and they’re just discovering the wonders of bulk purchasing?

While news of this report circulated, many on the right were flabbergasted that this administration’s Department of Homeland Security would release such a report. There seemed to be an overall knee jerk reaction to it from many republicans.  However, I think that when one considers it as a report dealing primarily with white supremacist groups and the like, it seems plausible, but still in line with the juvenile mistakes Obama’s administration has been making since day one.  Some of the language is ambiguous at best, identifying extremists as advocating fundamental conservative issues such as states rights and abortion.

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.

Can you imagine a report during Bush’s administration that said to “be on the lookout for left wing extremists that advocate an anti-war opinion and favor impeachment of the President?” And on top of that, states for all to see that there is no evidence of anything bad being planned.

Overall, the report lacks a solid foundation when it comes to details and facts.  Jonah Goldberg seems to capture my feelings in his article at the National Review.

The problem with it is that it makes little effort to document or demonstrate its contention that “extremist” groups are resurgent, that they are right-wing, or that they may be formed from the ranks of “disgruntled military veterans.” Worse, it’s very sloppy about what qualifies someone as “extremist” in the first place. Basically, it’s fancy bureaucratese for: We’re guessing bad people will do bad things because the economy is bad and the president is black. But we have no real evidence.

Charles Krauthammer has some of the most outstanding articles on current political discourse and happenings.  Wouldn’t it be great if he wrote more than once a week?

In this one, he talks about Obama’s budget claims and what not.  One of the best parts is where Obama is identifying huge savings down the road.

The boast that he had “identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.” It takes audacity to repeat this after it had been so widely exposed as transparently phony. Most of this $2 trillion is conjured up by refraining from spending $180 billion a year for 10 more years of surges in Iraq. Hell, why not make the “deficit reductions” $10 trillion — the extra $8 trillion coming from refraining from repeating the $787 billion stimulus package annually through 2019.