Clearly the left are Aliceites. They are aficionados of Alice viewing the world through the looking glass. They want a world of nonsense, a world devoid of meaning so that everything can be molded and morphed at will into anything that appeals to temporary desires. It is called situational ethics, which are, of course, no ethics at all.

Today we have two examples of this, one in America and one in England. We’ll focus on England first.

The UK Telegraph is reporting about the new it, the new thing assuming a status of “personhood,” a genderless human. That’s right the Telegraph is purporting that a British citizen is “officially” a genderless human, neither male nor female.

Norrie May-Welby, we are told, was born a man but had a sex change operation in 1990. For a time this “person” lived as a woman. But now she-he-it has decided that, “The concepts of man or woman don’t fit me. The simplest solution is not to have any sex identification.”

And so, the Aliceites in British government decided to comply and make May-Welby an “official” person of “no specific gender.”

Just as the Brits claimed to have the first man to have a baby back in 2008, now the Brits claim to have the first genderless person. But true to their Aliceite tendencies, neither is true and both “would be what it isn’t.”

You see, the “first man to have a baby” was never a man — born a woman, period — and the first “genderless person” was born a man and is still despite the cosmetic veneer carved into his flesh.

My second story is in Washington D.C. where President Obama and his minions in Congress are trying to pass a bill that no one has voted for using the so-called process of “deeming” and the “Slaughter rule.”

Democrats can’t get enough votes for their socialist takeover of America’s healthcare system so, instead of applying the centuries old process of campaigning for a law, writing a law, and then seeing that law voted up or down by our duly elected representatives, the Democrats are peering through the looking glass to find the Aliceite way to pass a bill into law without anyone voting at all.

Just like the left in the west is making murderous Islam a protected class, just as it imagines it can create an economy by stifling business, just as these illogical nits imagine that they can destroy all history and make the world new merely by saying so, they’ve created a world where “nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t.”

As the Wall Street Journal says, “We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are.” But the WSJ is only focused on U.S. politics. A wider view would find that we are all Aliceites now.

Never mind that all the other nations have their flags proudly flying above their military relief installations in Haiti. Even Croatia has its coat of arms flying outside its base. Yet not the U.S. Army. No U.S. flag flies anywhere despite that we are far and away the largest force and have supplied the most relief supplies and money to the earthquake recovery effort.

According to USAID, as of January 19, 2010 the U.S. had spent $130,864,571 on aid to the Haitian people to help them recover from the devastating earthquake. By Jan. 25 that number had already increased to $179,883,065. It is only going up from there.

So why did the Obama administration forbid flying our own flag in Haiti?

“We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery,” the U.S. government’s Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.

If it is so important to be seen as just another member of that international force, then why are all the other nations still flying their flags? Oh, I remember now… unlike the U.S. they don’t have a president that is more comfortable apologizing for his country than being proud of it, even when it is engaged in saving lives through relief work.

As far as Obama is concerned, we should be ashamed of our nation even when we are digging children and the aged out of mounds of crumbled ruins, even when we are feeding the hungry, and administering life saving medicines — all for free mind you. Even those efforts aren’t good enough for us to be proud to fly our flag above them, apparently.

The NavyTimes.com report reveals a craven attempt by the Obama Administration to pin this no-flag decision on our troops, too. Obama’s Army flak, Colonel Billy Buckner, spokesman for Joint Task Force-Haiti — “a group representing various Obama administration agency heads” the NavyTimes.com report tells us — says that our commanders are “smart” not to fly the flag.

“Our commanders are smart and intuitively understand their mission here in Haiti, and clearly the sensitivities that come with supporting the mission,” Buckner said. A U.S. flag went up at a temporary consular station set up in the first few days on the airport tarmac, according to Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State Department spokesman in Haiti.

“Apparently, the prime minister (Jean-Max Bellerive) saw this” and thought it appeared as if the United States were taking over the airport, Luoma-Overstreet said.

He said Bellerive said something to U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Merten, who agreed that flying the flag wasn’t a good idea and told the consular officials to take it down.

Notice how it went from “the commanders” being “smart” enough to understand the situation to Obama’s Ambassador to Haiti ordering the flag be removed? In other words, despite the Colonel trying to make it seem as if the commanders on the ground are all for this dearth of Old Glory, it really ends up being a political decision by Obama and his cohorts who are ashamed of America and willing to let anyone denigrate her.

Does anyone really think that PM Bellerive would have persisted in his loose observation that the U.S. was an “occupying force” amidst all the aid flowing into his country? And even if he did, so what? The aid we were supplying is obviously far more important than a cheap political maneuver by Bellerive.

Still, this shows the lack of spine Obama has when standing up to foreign criticism. Even this offhanded comment from Bellerive was enough for Obama to slight his own army and his own countrymen by removing Old Glory from sight in Haiti.

If Obama is this much of a linguini-spined sort of a leader, what will happen to us if he faces a real foreign crisis?

In an interview with the Tea Party Express’s Mark Williams, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan yelled, screamed, walked off his own set, and alleged that tea partiers carry signs calling for the death of blacks and Jews.  And as the veins were bursting in his head he then demanded that Mark Williams’ microphone be cut off so he could be heard.

We’re not exaggeraring folks.  Watch this amazing video clip of a complete meltdown – and a bizarrely fascinating display of hypocrisy as MSNBC does a propaganda segment on “Anger in America” and then shows us exactly what it looks like:

All we at the Tea Party Express can say is: More Please!

Please, FORWARD THIS VIDEO to everyone.  We need all of America to see how those who are trying to defeat this tea party movement conduct themselves.

Let those who mock and deride this tea party movement continue to act in this pyschotic fashion.  They discredit themselves, and each time they do they demonstrate just how much progress we are making with this tea party movement and how big of a threat we are to those who oppose this movement.

Let this exchange on MSNBC serve as a moment for all of us to enjoy the deranged response from those who don’t understand what this movement is about at all.  They are desperate and scared – and their conduct confirms this.

Keep doing what you’re doing fellow supporters of the tea party movement.  It’s obviously working!

What sparked Mr. Isaacs’ interest is when he somehow stumbled upon the fact that the number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices is not set in stone in the Constitution. We now have nine justices but in the past have had fewer. What intrigued him is that the number of justices fluctuated because of politics. “Political issues accounted for the changes,” Isaacs gleefully reported.

In keeping with these “political issues,” Mr. Isaacs lit upon the ideal way to help Obama finally push his left-wing agenda. He advised President Obama to add three new justices to the SCOTUS, justices that will mindlessly adhere to the grand vision of the age of Obama and will rule accordingly. This is necessary, Isaacs thinks, because the court has proven an impediment to Obama’s grand socialist design. Worse, Congress has balked at Obama’s wholesale destruction of America and has resisted his attempts to turn America into a weaker, less free version of Europe. Issacs, you see, demands a recount.

Sadly, Isaacs doesn’t seem to have the first clue why Obama’s re-design of the United States hasn’t already barreled ahead unhindered. Worse, he doesn’t seem to care.

Now this Isaacs fellow is not a consequential figure. He seems to be interested mostly in the prosaic world of sports and even at that he wrote less than 50 articles in all of 2009, most of them about sports. So we most certainly cannot point to this man as a Constitutional scholar, an expert on history, or a knowledgeable source on politics. But, his very pedestrian status easily qualifies him as a typical liberal — uninformed, yet oh, so self-assured. He is, therefore, worthy as a source on that level.

After a short history lesson on the history of the SCOTUS, Isaacs delivers his pronouncement that Obama should pack the court with compliant yes men. After rehashing FDR’s mistakes in trying to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, Isaacs says that Obama could easily avoid FDR’s mistakes.

Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.

It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.

If your jaw is not dropping to the floor in shock, it should be. Isaacs is no less than suggesting that Obama should ignore the voters, ignore Congress, ignore our very system by simply “changing the rules” in order to get his destructive agenda forced down our throats.

And proving his political ignorance, Isaacs misses the elephant in his own rhetorical room. Congress isn’t helping ram Obamaism upon the nation because Congress itself is feeling the heat from the voters who don’t want Obama’s complete makeover of the United States to succeed.

If Congressional Democrats were in such a position to allow Obama to pack the court, Obama wouldn’t need to pack the court because he’d have the political support to push his agenda through to fruition! The reason many of Obama’s most cherished socialist plans are stalled in Congress is not because Republicans are saying no, it’s not because of that mean ol’ Supreme court, it’s because not enough Democrats are standing behind the president’s plans.

Apparently Isaacs is unaware that the Democrat Party has majorities in both houses of Congress and, if they were completely consolidated, could do anything they wanted to do. But that is just it; they aren’t completely consolidated. And why is that? Because a large number of them come from conservative leaning districts where voters are unappreciative of Obama’s Euroesque plans. These politicians are, therefore, obligated to vote against Obama’s agenda because their voters back home insist they do so. That’s the “representative” part of our representative democracy.

Now, let’s take a moment to realize exactly what this Isaacs fellow is advocating. Like most fascist leftists, Isaacs is demanding that moderate Democrats from conservative districts ignore their voters and side with people that those voters dislike. Isaacs is saying the voter’s will doesn’t matter.

Then he is suggesting that we turn the courts into a political arm instead of a judicial arm. He is saying that the law should be nothing but an extension of presidential power, wholly owned and directed by the executive. So, why have a court at all in this case, Mr. Isaacs? In fact, why have a legislature? If Isaacs’ idea prevails we will have the United States of Obama where all “57 states” will be under the thumb of Barack the Red, supreme ruler of all he surveys.

Now, Mr. Isaacs may like this idea. He may have no problem with a supreme ruler sitting benevolently in Washington D.C. As for the rest of us, I think we like our democratic republic. I think we like having a judiciary that isn’t told what to think by an all-powerful leader. I think we like having a body that legislates, one that acts the executive, and one for jurisprudence. We like our Constitution and our rule of law.

Sadly, Mr. Isaacs’ hatred of our very American system makes him a typical liberal. But it also makes him very shortsighted. One wonders, after all, what this misinformed man would be say if a Republican had advised one of his presidents to act in such a haughty, self-indulgent, and dictatorial manner? One guesses that such as Mr. Isaacs would be none too happy, eh? Apoplectic might be the word. I guess the Biblical of “do unto others” doesn’t resonate with this one.

Finally, I have a bit of advice for Mr. Isaacs. If Isaacs still persists in this delusional thinking, perhaps he might see his way clear to move to Venezuela, or Cuba where the system he dreams of currently exists. Of course, we certainly wouldn’t miss his kind should he avail himself of his rights to find a country more in keeping with his tyrannical ideas but he might at last feel at home.

On February 23, ABC TV Channel 7, WTRF News (Wheeling, West Virginia/ Steubenville, Ohio), posted on its website what was originally credited as a story written by reporter Bob Westfall. Unfortunately, though, this posting was only posing as a news story as it was nothing but a word-for-word re-posting of Democrat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown’s latest press release. There was little to no difference between Brown’s press release and the “story” as posted on the ABC 7 news site.

The story was up for most of the day, but was taken down in the early evening of February 23. (Originally seen here) One can only assume that WTRF got a bit embarrassed at its schilling for a Democrat Senator.

Here is a screen shot of the Google search page that showed WTRF’s original posting.

To show that there was really no difference between Senator Brown’s press release and the ABC 7 “story,” here is the story as supposedly written by reporter Bob Westfall as it appeared on the ABC 7, WTRF website:

Ohio Senator Urging Extension of Unemployment Benefits

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is asking for an extension of federal unemployment insurance.

Story by Bob Westfall

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Tuesday urged the extension of unemployment insurance to support Ohio’s dislocated workers and their families through Dec. 31, 2010.

Nearly 200,000 Ohioans will lose these emergency benefits if unemployment insurance is not extended by the end of the month.

“Too many middle class families are struggling to get by,” Brown said. “This legislation will help Ohioans and all Americans who worked hard and played by the rules but are still struggling to find jobs. We must extend unemployment insurance while passing critical jobs legislation that will give incentives to businesses that hire unemployed workers.”

In a letter to Senate Leadership, Brown called for full federal funding of the Extended Benefit program, increasing state and federal benefits by $25 per week, and the suspension of the federal income tax on an individual’s first $2,400 of unemployment benefits. Brown is also seeking an additional six months of extended benefits.

As of mid-February, more than 432,000 Ohioans were receiving unemployment compensation. Almost half of these Ohioans, nearly 200,000, will lose these benefits if unemployment insurance is not extended by the end of the month. In addition, more than 232,000 Ohioans receiving extended benefits will be ineligible for the next phase of benefits if no extension is passed.

Eligible workers may receive up to 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. Previous extensions created two tiers of additional coverage: Tier 1, which provides up to 20 additional weeks of benefits, and Tier 2, which provides up to 13 additional weeks of benefits. The latest extension, passed in Nov. 2009, added one additional week to the Tier 2 benefits and created two new tiers: Tier 3 (up to 13 additional weeks of benefits) and Tier 4 (up to 6 additional weeks of benefits for workers in hard-hit states like Ohio).

Earlier this month, Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., sought to temporarily extend benefits. However, Reid’s bill was blocked by Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Now here is Brown’s press release from his U.S. Senate website.

Brown Urges Extension of Unemployment Insurance through 2010

Nearly 200,000 Ohioans Will Lose Coverage if Unemployment Insurance is Not Extended

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today urged the extension of unemployment insurance to support Ohio’s dislocated workers and their families through December 31, 2010. Nearly 200,000 Ohioans will lose these emergency benefits if unemployment insurance is not extended by the end of the month.

“Too many middle class families are struggling to get by,” Brown said. “This legislation will help Ohioans and all Americans who worked hard and played by the rules but are still struggling to find jobs. We must extend unemployment insurance while passing critical jobs legislation that will give incentives to businesses that hire unemployed workers.”

In a letter to Senate Leadership, Senator Brown called for full federal funding of the Extended Benefit program, increasing state and federal benefits by $25 per week, and the suspension of the federal income tax on an individual’s first $2,400 of unemployment benefits. Brown is also seeking an additional six months of extended benefits.

As of mid-February, more than 432,000 Ohioans were receiving unemployment compensation. Almost half of these Ohioans, nearly 200,000, will lose these benefits if unemployment insurance is not extended by the end of the month. In addition, more than 232,000 Ohioans receiving extended benefits will be ineligible for the next phase of benefits if no extension is passed.

Eligible workers may receive up to 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. Previous extensions created two tiers of additional coverage: Tier 1, which provides up to 20 additional weeks of benefits, and Tier 2, which provides up to 13 additional weeks of benefits. The latest extension, passed in Nov. 2009, added one additional week to the Tier 2 benefits and created two new tiers: Tier 3 (up to 13 additional weeks of benefits) and Tier 4 (up to 6 additional weeks of benefits for workers in hard-hit states like Ohio).

Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sought to temporarily extend benefits. However, Reid’s bill was blocked by Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

If you can find any material difference you have a sharper eye than I do! What we have here is a TV news site simply regurgitating a Democrat’s press release and acting as if it is reporting a “story.”

And the Old Media protests when conservatives claim that they are just an arm of the Democrat Party? With examples like this it sure is hard to refute the accusation, isn’t it?

Ed Fountain is the photog that took the famous picture that the right-o-sphere guffawed at a few weeks ago showing President Obama strangely bowing to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio.

In light of the many times Obama has bowed to the floor in supplication before several of the world’s leaders — making himself look like a weakling to the world — conservatives made light of this photo saying that it shows that this weakling president will bow to anyone. After all, why the heck would anyone supplicate themselves before the Mayor of Tampa, Florida? He’s the president, fer cripes sakes!

Well, Ed Fountain is torked off at you mean, rotten righties for so misusing his photo. How DARE you use his picture for your political message, he says! Not only does Fountain reveal himself to be a very upset lefty, he reveals himself as a fellow that takes himself just a tad too seriously.

The tightly wound Fountain shakes his finger at the folks that so abused his handiwork. And to prove that Obama was perfectly in the rights to bow before a mere mayor Fountain has a perfectly reasonable explanation for that absurd Obamabow:

I had captured him in a respectful bow, a traditional greeting of one’s host. As mayor of Tampa, Iorio was just that: Obama’s host.

A “respectful bow”? You’re kidding, right Ed? I defy anyone to find a lot of “respectful bowing” going on at American political events where high-ranking politicians are greeting each other. You won’t find it because it doesn’t happen. People may incline their head (usually to the right, by the way) when they meet someone, but in America no one bows. Fountain is breaking his own back with his gymnastics to explain away Obama’s odd behavior.

But this obviously sycophantic covering by this left-wing photog isn’t the most amusing thing about his article taking the right to task. It is his assumption that his work is somehow sacrosanct.

Nothing makes my blood boil more than seeing an image, particularly one I created, used outside of its original context to promote a particular agenda. Further compounding my frustration is that it is totally out of my control when it happens. People criticize the media constantly for showing bias, or not reporting the whole truth, but here is an instance of an accurate depiction of an event being recycled and repackaged with much bias. Fair? I don’t think so.

Get a grip, Eddie. Not a soul on Earth knows it was even you that took the photo. Still, there was no “out of context” use of the snap shot by the right. The man bowed to a simple mayor as if that mayor were a Saudi King or the Japanese Emperor. Of course, the fact is he should never have bowed to those two or to the mayor of Tampa, Florida.

Your bending over backwards to excuse his bending over forwards is unbecoming of you both, Mr. Fountain.

But Ron who is still upset that he is second fiddle to Michael, Ronald Reagan’s adopted son and popular conservative commentator, still tries to go out and put himself forth as the keeper of the Reagan name.  The problem has always been however that if anyone understood their father, it was Michael.

Ron Jr. is out and about, having a lot of free time on his hands being a pundit on seldom watched MSNBC and having failed as a radio talk show host.  And he is out there towing the liberal line and trying to make everyone believe that his father would have looked unkindly upon the Tea Party movement.

Yes, the man that wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him in the ass actually thinks people are taking him seriously when he says this.  Well, at least Joy Behar is I guess …

Ron Reagan, a liberal Democrat, told Behar last month that the Gipper, a conservative icon who would have turned 99 last weekend, would’ve been turned off by the modern Tea Party.

“Oh I think he would be unamused by the tea partiers with their Hitler signs and all the rest of it,” he said. “No, I don’t think he’d be cottoning to that much at all.”

Ron Reagan went on to say that despite the troubles of the Democratic Party, the GOP is a “true train wreck.”

“Look at Sarah Palin and Scott Brown,” he said.

Yeah, that is about as deep of a thought that you are going to get out of Ron Jr. He is playing to the liberal crowd who need not any facts to support such accusation. Instead he spouts the cliched claims of the left, pats himself on the back and thinks he has won. Uh, Ronnie-boy, how exactly are Sarah Palin and Scott Brown, “train wrecks?” Is it because they are just not liberals like you and your buddies?

Let’s ignore that liberalism is a train wreck I suppose. It is an ideology that has failed at every attempt and on every level.

Now it is true that Reagan was not a fan of having a third party.  But the Tea Party movement is not a third party.  At least not yet.  It is however a popular uprising against the liberal ways of Washington.  And even if it did become a political party, who is to say that it would be a “third party?”  Recent polls have shown that “Tea Party Candidates” have more support than Republican Party candidates when the Republican candidate is liberal.   That would make the Republicans the third party in reality and not the Tea Party.   And Scott Brown was not a Tea Party candidate either.  He was a Republican supported by the Tea Party movement.   Even in NY-23 the candidate that eventually ran as a “third party candidate” was really a Republican who was shunned by the party and had many times more support than the liberal Republican did!  Again, hardly a true “third party candidate.”

But I think Michael Reagan said it best in response to this blather:

“Unlike my brother, I campaigned with and for my father in 1976 and in 1980 — and I feel more qualified to say what he would and would not have supported,” Michael Reagan said.

“He would be applauding the grassroots organization of this country and Sarah Palin for making herself available to elect conservative candidates.”

Well, hard to argue with those facts. While Michael was standing by his father’s side on a regular basis, Ron Jr. was looking for someone to help put the silver spoon back in his mouth because to do it himself would have been beneath him. But it should not come as any surprise that a liberal without a brain in his head is out there trying to talk down to the Tea Party movement since they fear it like a vampire fears garlic.

Nice try Ron but NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Isn’t it wonderful that a decades old American comic book hero is now being used to turn readers against our very political system, being used to slander folks that are standing up for real American principles in real life — and one called “Captain America” at that?

In issue number 602 of Captain America, a new story line has begun called “Two Americas.” In it the current Captain (there have been a few of them, apparently) is on the trail of a faux Captain America that is mentally deranged and getting chummy with some white supremacist, anti-government, survivalists types going by the name of “the Watchdogs.” While investigating this subversive group, Captain America and his partner The Falcon — a black super hero — have decided to try and infiltrate the secretive organization.

In preparation for the infiltration, Marvel Comics depicts the two super heroes out of costume and observing from a rooftop a street filled with what can only be described as a Tea Party protest. The scene shows crowds of people in city streets carrying signs that say, “stop the socialists,” “tea bag libs before they tea bag you,” and “no to new taxes.” Naturally, the people in these crowds are depicted as being filled with nothing but white folks.

Get image here: http://www.publiusforum.com/images/captAmer_teapartyfear.JPG

The black character asks the out of costume Captain, “What the hell is this?” And follows that with, “looks like some kind of anti-tax protest.” The Falcon character then snidely tells his partner the Captain, “So I guess this whole ‘hate the government’ vibe around here isn’t limited to the Watchdogs.”

The two then discuss their plan to infiltrate the subversive group that Marvel comics seems to be linking to the Tea Party movement. This discussion culminates in The Falcon wondering how a black man would do such a thing. “I don’t exactly see a black man from Harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks,” he tells the incognito Captain America.

The Captain tells him, “no it’s perfect… this all fits right into my plan.” After this we find that the Captain’s plan is to send the black man into a redneck bar to pretend to be a black man working for the IRS and to get everyone all mad… because… well, you know that every white person is a racist that hates black civil servants, right?

So, there you have it, America. Tea Party protesters just “hate the government,” they are racists, they are all white folks, they are angry, and they associate with secretive white supremacist groups that want to over throw the U.S. government.

Bet you didn’t know that when you were indulging your right as a citizen to protest your government that you were a dangerous white supremacist that wants to destroy the country, did you? Bet you didn’t realize that your reverence for the U.S. Constitution was a subversive thing to do, did you? And I’ll also bet that you never imagined that you’d scare the little blue panties off of Captain America!

Nice going Marvel Comics. Thanks for making patriotic Americans into your newest super villains.

The younger Kennedy is upset. He is upset that Senator Scott Brown, duly elected to serve the people of the State of Massachusetts without question, wanted to take up his seat in the Senate rather than let old what’s his name who no one can remember continue to cast votes in lock step with the liberal Democrats.

Reports the Hill:

“Brown’s whole candidacy was shown to be a joke today when he was sworn in early in order to cast his first vote as an objection to Obama’s appointment to the NLRB,” Kennedy said Thursday.
Kennedy was referencing some Democrats’ thoughts that Brown tried to bump up his swearing-in in order to give Republicans 41 votes, enough to filibuster the nomination of Craig Becker, a controversial nominee to join the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“Seven out of ten of Brown’s voters were labor households and he stressed that he was independent and while he was originally scheduled to be sworn in next week, they moved it up to today so he could cast his first vote, the most anti-labor, the most anti-what his constituents thought they were voting for when they voted for him,” Kennedy said.

We can only take from this little tirade by an even littler man that being an “independent” means that he should never vote with Republicans and should fall in line with President Obama and the far left goofs in the Senate? Hey Kennedy! Yooohoooo! Did you not pay attention? Brown, while I still maintain should not be praised as some great savior of our Republic, ran specifically against many of the things the liberals in Washington wanted to do! He was elected on those merits! So who do you think you are complaining that he is doing something that he could have reasonably been expected to do and oppose things far left liberals are trying to do? Yeah, I know, you’re a Kennedy – you think you are entitled to tell people what to do.

Get over yourself. Sober up and then maybe you can try again to explain how exactly Brown wanting to be seated to do what he was elected to do is a bad thing. At least when I plan to criticize Mr. Brown it will be over his failure, which is coming so mark my words, to do what he is sworn to do – defend and protect and abide by our Constitution. You on the other hand Mr. Kennedy just sound like a spoiled brat. Which is good, because that is exactly what you are. Because for some reason I do not remember such outrage on your part at liberals that blocked nominations of President Bush simply because he was an R and they were Ds – not that quite a few of Bush’s appointments didn’t deserve to be blocked by the way.

How’s that Obama thing and all that hope and change working out for you? Bet you didn’t think that he meant spending that much money in such a short period of time did you?

Two trillion dollars in one month? That’s over half of President Obama’s proposed $3.8 trillion budget for 2010! And in just 28 days. This has got to be some sort of record. Considering that federal revenues are typically in the $2.5 trillion dollar range that means that there is only about $500 billion dollars left before we hit red ink and much of that, if not more, was likely spent in January.

Boy, it sure must be nice to print your own money. Wasn’t it President Obama who just got through telling us how government can’t be so fiscally irresponsible? Yeah, and if you believed he was serious you are a fool.

I should laugh at all this but it is too serious to be funny.