See if these two maps seem to have a running theme. First, Map 1. No titles, no labels, just ten pins:
If that doesn’t seem clear enough, try this one:
That is the ten richest counties in the USA according to the 2010 census. What do you think the odds are that five of them would be within 30 miles of Washington, DC. A city built on a swamp with no natural resources.
Now, let’s look at another map, shall we?
I’m gonna bet a bunch of people will know what this list is simply by the locations. South Carolina, Mississippi, and eastern Kentucky. For those that don’t get it real quick and easy, we’ll all sit back and let you figure it out.
Got it? If not, they are the ten poorest counties according to the 2010 census. Now, unlike Washington, DC, some of these areas are rich in resources. But, for various reasons, have not thrived. The top three in fact sit on some of the largest coal reserves on the planet. Over-regulation and political fear-mongering in the 60′s and 70′s killed the industry that was lifting these areas out of the poverty. It was done by people, drum roll please, who lived in the first map. So how do you suppose people living in the first map made all that money? They’re not doing it by mining coal. They’re doing it to a huge degree there off of taxpayer’s backs. What little money’s being made in Lee County, KY is being taxed and sent to DC so people can live nicely in Fairfax, VA.
And God forbid any man think about flipping it around occasionally. The mere suggestion of spending any federal money in the poorest of the poor counties in the US automatically gets labeled as pork by any organization that feels they have the authority to call it what they want. There’s all kinds of organizations that feel justified in persecuting anyone that feels like spending money where people need it most. They don’t care at all that if a geographic area has nothing to immediately attach federal spending to, the only way they can get any money is by what they define to be pork. In their perfect world scenario, the people of Fairfax, VA would simply get all the federal money and the rest of the country would have to fend for itself as well as chip in to cover it. Think I’m making this stuff up? Where do you suppose Citizens for Government Waste has their offices?
1301 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 1075, WASHINGTON, DC 20004
Right smack in the middle of the dots in the first map. Their favorite target? The guy who represents four of the dots on the last map. Coincidence?
I know as well as anyone that some of the “pork” is waste. But, I also know that there are no other means to target specific problem areas economically. If a Congressman attempts to use federal dollars to stimulate economic development, it’s immediately lumped into the same category as “pork” even if it’s a well thought out program that can generate economic benefits. The problem has never been pork. Ever. The problem has been wasteful spending. Follow me for just one second with this. CAGW and a whole long list of people target a particular type of spending. What they never do, ever, is look at ingrained wasteful spending. 20,000 health and human service jobs around Fairfax, VA is a hell of a lot more wasteful than building one multi-functional building in Somerset, KY. Has CAGW ever concerned themselves with that? No. Because there is no established mechanism in rural Kentucky for wasting huge amounts of money, it HAS to be pork. If they want to do it around Fairfax, VA, they just hire another 1,000 government employees and Citizens Against Government Waste and Anderson Cooper are perfectly happy with it.
28
Jul
Is a government oversight.
10
Mar
Newsbusters is having all kinds of fun with Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. Here’s what Jack Coleman is having all kinds of fun with:
Now, according to popular myth, and espoused whole-heartedly by Rachel Maddow, Hoover did nothing during the Great Depression. He froze federal spending and simply watched The Great Depression dig the country deeper and deeper into an economic mess.
Jack then points out that Hoover didn’t freeze government spending. He increased it. In fact, he increased it a lot.
So, let’s fact check, shall we? Jack and Rachel have thoroughly conflicting stories of what Hoover actually did.
According to GPO, this is what federal receipts and outlays were from 1929 to 1932:
| Year | Receipts | Outlays | ||
| 1929 | 3,862 | -1% | 3,127 | 6% |
| 1930 | 4,058 | 5% | 3,320 | 6% |
| 1931 | 3,116 | -23% | 3,577 | 8% |
| 1932 | 1,924 | -38% | 4,659 | 30% |
Bottom line, Hoover increased spending 49% by my math over four years trying to prop up the economy and get things back on track. His smallest increase was 6%. To date, Obama’s budgets have increased spending by about 5%. Seems Rachel doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. So, this year, Rachel will defend Obama for spending wildly, which is not quite as much as Hoover actually did. Then, if things still don’t get much better, but Obama does indeed cut spending as he’s promised, she’ll defend Obama anyway. She’s an idiot. How do these people get paid to be on MSNBC? Really, I can make stupid unsubstantiated claims too. However, they bug me. I like dealing with facts. Facts don’t come back and bite you in the butt and make you feel stupid if you verify them.
The fact of the matter is nothing Hoover did or tried to do would have mattered. The entire world was mired in an economic downturn and there were no recourses available to insulate our economy from the rest of the world. What kicked the US out of the Depression was not the New Deal or any work program. It was World War II. Not only did we make stuff for our armies, we made stuff for other armies. This brought revenues and jobs to the US. When the war was over, most of the world economies were devestated and the US stood pretty much alone in being a manufacturing mecca for the planet. Because of that unchallenged manufacturing base, financial resources came to the US in droves. This has brought prosperity to the US since WWII.
Now, if Rachel advocates a global conflict to assure Obama’s place in history, that’s about as nutty as claiming Hoover didn’t try spend his way out of The Great Depression. However, given her protection on MSNBC, I wouldn’t rule it out. Bush was bad for going into Iraq, but I’m quite certain if Obama started a war, it would be just fine with MSNBC.
Bottomest line of this post, looking at the history MSNBC and others are re-writing
According to Congressional Quarterly, the House is on its way to passing an Alternative Minimum Tax patch to keep things the way they are right now. Apparently the Republicans, who initially raised the limits, support it, the Democrats want those exemptions gone. That’s good news to me. According to the Democrats over the last few years, I’m one of the wealthy that needs to be taxed to death. However, that doesn’t make my debts and expenses go away. Fact is, I’m paycheck to paycheck right now, far removed from the excesses of wealth. But, that doesn’t phase Democrats like Peter Welch:
“Enacting an AMT patch today when we don’t pay for it would simply shift that $62 billion from the middle class onto their children and their grandchildren,” said Peter Welch , D-Vt. “What we fail to pay today, they will be forced to pay tomorrow, with interest.”
Now, this totally befuddles a true Republican such as myself for several reasons.
- He’s not “shifting” anything. He had X number of dollars to spend before, he has the same X number of dollars to spend tomorrow. Just because he made no effort to pass a budget within his means last year doesn’t mean his children are guaranteed to suffer. It simply mean:
- Instead of taking more money from the tax payors, how’s about he B&M about the government spending less? According Cititzens Against Waste in Government, 38 Representatives have agreed not to request any earmarks. Peter Welch is not one of those. In fact, only 4 of the 38 are Democrats. So, I suggest that before Congressman Welch go bitching at the Republicans for not taxing me more so he can spend more, he direct his whining at those 228 members of his own party who think it’s prudent to take more of my money so they can waste it. However, since Nancy Pelosi refuses to sign the petition either, I doubt he’ll get very far.
- If they spend less, our children will owe less.
Bottom line, I think Peter Welch is way out in left field on this. He’s not going to win this argument with anyone that’s not flaming liberal. When he starts spending less, and THEN can’t pay the bills, I think he’ll have a lot better footing to stand on.
This is nuts:
I got all kinds of problems with this.
- Who pays for the nurses and clinic space? I can only assume it’s the taxpayers of San Francisco. Probably with a little help from the taxpayers of California mixed in with a little more help by the taxpayers of the United States. I for one have absolutely no desire whatsoever to condone drug addiction. Addiction prevention and intervention, maybe. Pacifying addiction, no way in hell. That’s their path they chose to take, not mine. If they want to kill themselves, do it at their own expense. If I were living in San Francisco, a lawsuit would be flying to stop my money from abetting in a crime.
- They say they’re trying to curb the expense of overdose emergency hospital visits. There’s a much easier way to do it, if they have no insurance, and they’re overdosing from a situation they willfully got themselves into, leave them in the parking lot. Social medical care is for those that NEED it, not those that ABUSE it. When society gets that part straight, it will go a long way towards paying for SCHIP and other programs Pete Stark and Nancy Pelosi wants. We can’t solve every problem. What we can do is focus on the people who truly deserve it. Addicts can solve their own problems and not be a burden on society. Only their selfishness makes them a burden on the San Francisco health care system. Pandering to that selfishness only will make it worse.
- I work in the medical field at this time. We are required to report situations that are detrimental to a client’s welfare and report the problem to the appropriate agency that can help resolve the situation. Will these nurses be required to report these people to the various entities that could help them resolve their problem?
- How many of these people will be violating OTHER laws by going there such as parole and custody requirements? How many laws will have to be ignored in order to provide this service? To assume a heroin addict who has to rely on a public clinic to safely administer their hit is responsible in every other facet of life is a unrealistic leap that I’ll never be convinced of.
- How are these burdens oon society going to repay society for all the free services they expect? They’re just going to get free-heroin-assistance and walk away? Horrible plan. If they have nothing better to do than get stoned in the morning, they could be spending that time working for their heroin by cleaning up San Francisco or doing SOMETHING constructive. My bet is if they were expected to do something, they’d never show up.
- I can not believe you could find enough nurses in San Francisco that ethically could sit back and watch someone do that to their body. That’s not the ethical standards of any nurse. At least, that’s not what they teach in nursing in Kentucky. Here you’re taught to try to mitigate or eliminate the problem, not make it worse.
- There are drug addiction specialists here as well as anywhere, but I would think they’d be rather appalled at the idea of the government assisting losers in staying stoned. You want big brother, it couldn’t get any worse than this.
- In San Francisco, you can pretty much come to the conclusion that they have surrendered in the war on drugs. Pretty much exactly what Pete Stark and Nancy Pelosi want us to do in every war. That’s just not my gut instinct. If there’s a threat to my way of life and quality of life, I fight it. If I see it as a threat to my kid, I fight it even harder. For reasons completely alien to me, politicians from California seem to want to pacify it. Have they never dealt with the consequences of drug addiction in their life? I can’t imagine that they have not, and I can’t imagine, based on what’s going on in their back yard, that they have. I just truly can’t imagine what the leaders of San Francisco are thinking right now. I’m just glad they’re not here.
That’s probably enough for now. I know I could go on. This is a HORRID idea and if I lived anywhere near there I’d be suing on a myriad of legal reasons. If nothing else, I think I could easily have the nurses working there arrested for aiding and abetting in a crime. Using federal laws, all the FBI would have to do is walk in, find one drop of heroin, and all the assets of the clinic could be seized. Which, in this case, it needs to be.
Did I say this idea is horrible?
In 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral college. He however, lost the popular vote. The election was so close that Al Gore challenged one state in an effort to change the outcome of the election. The only reason it was that close was because Gore focused on a hand full of huge electoral prizes and won most of them. Bush carried about 70% of the states, but that didn’t matter, most were small electoral prizes. Gore’s strategy I felt cheated most of America. It was smart mathematically, but nevertheless allows a candidate to ignore most of America and focus primarily on California, New York, and Texas. One vote more than the other candidate in those states and you got the whole prize. The entire representation of that state. That just ain’t right. Now, Republicans are sponsoring a change to the California electoral college that will dole out electoral votes based on the percentage of votes received. This is a win-win for all of America in my opinion. First of all, it forces Democrat candidates to work California as hard, if not harder, than they ever had to before. Most popular Democrat candidates could take California for granted, it’s just that urban, and that Democrat because of it. Now, taking Los Angeles will not guarantee 55 electoral votes. They’ll have to work all of California. It’s a win for the smaller states in the rest of the country as well. If the Democrat candidate knows they’re not going to get a 20 something electoral vote bonus for one extra vote in California, they’ll attempt to make up those votes elsewhere. That will force them to recognize the Idaho’s and Alaska’s.
I like this plan a lot. I have argued that the electoral college was designed with a purpose. A purpose I agree with. However, the sheer size and disproportionate population shifts have kind of undermined the college’s intent. Proportional college allotments will return it to it’s original intent. How a state assigns their college is up to them. So, it’s all within the intent of the Founding Fathers. This is a good plan California, I hope you all take it seriously. And, I think all states should follow their lead.
Nothing.
SOME people make the argument that a house divided is stronger than a unified house. Of course, some others have made the point that’s not true. I would be in that boat. I have also stated several times in the past that within two years, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would do so much damage to the Democrat Party that not only will they lose the Presidential election, they most likely would lose their majority in Congress. So far, it’s looking like I over-estimated their chances to survive two years. Barely three months into their leadership I made the “saving Republicans” post. Now eight months in, it’s much, much, worse:
Last year The Rolling Stone did a piece called “Worst Congress Ever”. They based it on the fact that they don’t like Conservatives. They even said so. Part of the reason it was the worst ever was because one of their worst leaders ever was a Christian. They were pandering to poll numbers. Now, Rolling Stone and whoever agreed, what to make of THIS Congress? Remember Nancy’s 10 point plan? How much of that has actually been realized? More transparent government? They tried to hide pork. Cleaning up the culture of corruption, William Jefferson is STILL in Congress and Nancy won’t say a peep about it. Getting our troops out of Iraq? Harry goes home while the rest do nothing. Anyone still wonder why this Congress has a 14% approval rating? The lowest Zogby has EVER registered.
The plan as I laid out on November 7, 2006 is moving way ahead of schedule. I really thought Nancy and Harry could hold things together at least one year. I was wrong.
OK, divided supporters, that was mostly sarcasm. Harry and Nancy never had a chance because the guy who signs their legislation into law won’t. Rather than seeking some common middle ground as other, wiser, leaders have done in the past to show progress, Harry and Nancy are thumbing their noses at the guy that signs their legislation. As stupid as media and a lot of people paint Bush, his popularity has increased while Nancy and Harry’s has plummeted since they took the spotlight. That should tell ya something. But, I’m sure it won’t. A House divided will not stand. That doesn’t have anything to do with party lines. However, because of the infinite wisdom of our Founding Fathers, a broken House can be fixed in two years or less. In this case, I’m betting it gets repaired in about fifteen months. One way or another. Give Nancy and Harry another fifteen months and the Democrats won’t have a chance. This could get very, very messy very, very soon. The person who is getting hurt the worst by this inept leadership of Nancy and Harry is Hillary Clinton. Anyone remember what happened to people who got in Hillary’s cross-hairs in the past?
Got this from Citizens Against Government Waste:
Dear Representative,
The new House leadership promised to bring to Washington, the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history. The recent announcement by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) that earmarks will only appear in conference reports, and not in committee bills where they would be subject to challenges and amendments, shows that it is no longer business as usual in Washington it is far worse. Even the modest earmark reform passed in the 109th Congress that allowed members to challenge individual pork projects on the floor and require public disclosure of earmarks and their sponsors has been eviscerated.
Reforming the earmark process is NOT designing a procedure where members of Congress are denied the opportunity to debate the validity of an earmark and requesting a vote on whether it should remain in the legislation or not. Reforming the earmark process is NOT creating billion dollar ghost accounts where pork projects will be air-dropped in conference reports. Taxpayers have a right to understand where and how their tax dollars are being spent. In light of this, when you are considering the rules for each appropriations bill, a vote will be called to move the previous question. I ask that you vote no and allow earmark reform to be debated and voted on. By voting no, you will bring accountability to the earmark process. All votes on previous questions will be among the votes considered for CCAGWs 2007 Congressional Ratings.
Yeah buddy, I’m sure this will be all over CNN and MSNBC by tomorrow!
Here’s their message:
Letter to House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture
Dear Member,
Tomorrow you will have a hearing on the nations current rural broadband programs. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is responsible for the Rural Broadband Loan Program, which subsidizes broadband service in rural areas. RUS has spent more than $871 million to provide this service since 2003. A report released this month by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development entitled Broadband Statistics to December 2006 found that, while the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the 30 countries it researched, our nation ranked 15th in broadband deployment penetration. On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supports of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I ask that you abolish the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
Besides the more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the program has lost its focus on serving rural America. A 2005 audit conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General stated RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS definition of rural area is too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program funds) to communities near metropolitan areas Though the law does not explicitly forbid issuing loans to communities with preexisting service, we question whether the Rural Broadband Loan Program should be providing funds for competition in many of the communities served, while other communities go entirely without service.
Instead of allowing the free market to flourish, RUS has been subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in neighborhoods that already have this service. The government should no longer be allowed to waste the taxpayers money in bringing broadband to rural areas. This goal should be left entirely to the private technology sector. CCAGW asks that you support the abolition of the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
I am completely opposed to their opinion. Completely.
First of all, they liken the broadband services as basically all being the same. They are not. Not even close. Just because a community has dial-up does not mean they have the resources to provide adequate bandwidth to lure industry. A typical DSL connection will not support an internet based company. In order to do this, you have to have huge chunks of bandwidth. The local cable company or DSL company doesn’t need that type of overhead to provide typical home-based internet browsing. As such, although most of the rural United States may have broadband penetration as CAGW states, they are at a disadvantage to attracting industries to most third world nations at this time. Given the financial and technological resources available in the United States, that is quite embarrassing to me.
On a national security level, clustering all our communications assets in very localized urban areas is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. There is no need to all of our critical data to be in Washington, DC. Put some in rural Kentucky. Put some in rural Nebraska. Hell, put some in Kansas. Spreading those resources out makes things a lot more complicated for enemies.
Now, on a bigger picture that Tom Schatz is missing, some people feel that urban areas are the main problem in global warming. There’s a phenomena called urban warming named specifically for that effect. It’s not much of an issue in rural areas. I have pondered several times on my blogs that it seems to me that de-urbanizing the United States would do the US, and the world, good. We no longer need to cluster a million people in a small area thereby overwhelming the Earth’s ability to provide. We don’t need huge expanses of concrete and asphalt. We just need to spread out a little. We need to live amongst the trees so those trees can counter our CO2 emissions a little more efficiently. We just don’t need cities in this day and age and they are doing more harm than good. A big part of the reason we don’t need cities any more is because of remarkably improved communications. It is no longer expected of a person to meet face-to-face every single time you have an important message. We don’t have to hand deliver documents. We don’t have to assemble 100 people in the same room to coordinate a message. The internet has solved all those issues. So, to say broadband is not worth the government investing in it is ludicrous and extremely short-sighted.
CAGW does a lot of good things and tackles a lot of truly wasteful spending. However, in this case, they’re 100% wrong.
Nancy Pelosi ( yeah, I know, AGAIN! ), lambasted the Republicans for being nothing but crooks. Her silence on the Democrat Culture of Corruption has been deafening. This weeks’s scandal? Dianne Feinstein.
Dianne Feinstein had been on the Military Construction Appropriations committee for six years. During four of those years, Perini Corporation and URS Corp were MAJOR recipients of the largess that is the Military Construction Appropriations committee. The good folks of California were often critical, and surprised, at Feinstein’s support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They never bothered to ask why very much tho. Feinstein’s husband’s company, Perini, received $500 million in Iraq and Afghanistan contracts. Now, we can assume Nancy Pelosi knows Dianne Feinstein pretty well. We can also assume Pelosi knew what Feinstein’s husband did as well. What we can also assume is Nancy said NOTHING during the entire time Feinstein was lining her pockets with BILLIONS in federal money. Feinstein was profiting off the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts very overtly while Nancy Pelosi and the DNC constantly harassed Dick Cheney for once being an employee of Haliburton. And why do you suppose Nancy kept her mouth shut during all this corruption?
| Date | Amount | Recipient |
| 09/20/2002 | $350,000 | DSCC/Non-Federal Unicorp Assoc |
| 03/31/2003 | $25,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 04/30/2002 | $20,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 10/28/2004 | $10,000 | Democratic Party of South Dakota |
| 10/23/1995 | $10,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 12/05/1999 | $7,500 | DSCC/Non-Federal Mixed |
| 09/15/1998 | $5,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 05/01/2000 | $5,000 | DSCC/Non-Federal Unicorp Assoc |
| 12/05/1999 | $3,750 | DSCC/Non-Federal Mixed |
| 06/14/1999 | $2,000 | Lieberman, Joe |
| 05/10/2004 | $2,000 | Farmer, Nancy |
| 08/06/2004 | $2,000 | Salazar, Ken |
| 03/18/2005 | $2,000 | Byrd, Robert C |
| 09/26/2006 | $2,000 | Whitehouse, Sheldon |
| 06/01/2004 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/01/2004 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/21/2002 | $1,000 | Bradbury, Bill |
| 06/20/2002 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/20/2002 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/01/1998 | $1,000 | Kerrey, Bob |
| 06/01/1998 | $1,000 | Kerrey, Bob |
| 06/15/1998 | $1,000 | Nixon, Jay |
| 06/15/1998 | $1,000 | Nixon, Jay |
| 02/13/2000 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 01/23/1999 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 10/15/1997 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 08/22/1997 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 08/22/1997 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 07/10/1996 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 03/20/1996 | $1,000 | Minnick, Walt |
| 10/25/1996 | $1,000 | Strickland, Tom |
| 10/20/1995 | $1,000 | Dodd, Christopher J |
| 08/15/2001 | $1,000 | Strickland, Tom |
| 08/15/2001 | $1,000 | Strickland, Tom |
| 07/26/1994 | $1,000 | Hyatt, Joel |
| 04/09/1993 | $1,000 | Willie Brown for Assembly |
| 02/23/1994 | $1,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 02/23/1994 | $1,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 03/31/1999 | $1,000 | Gore, Al |
| 06/30/1999 | $1,000 | Lieberman, Joe |
| 03/23/2000 | $1,000 | Nelson, Ben |
| 07/06/2004 | $520 | America Coming Together |
| 03/01/2000 | ($1,000) | Kerrey, Bob |
| 06/30/1999 | ($1,000) | Lieberman, Joe |
| 04/19/2005 | $26,700 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 03/31/2004 | $25,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 10/22/1999 | $6,605 | DNC Services Corp |
Because Howard Dean, who was screaming the loudest about Republican corruption, was taking money from the Feinsteins as fast as he could stick his hands out.
Yes folks, the entire Democrat Party was profiting from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars while Koz and all the other sheep harped on the Republicans profiting in ways they could never prove. There it is folks, in black and white. It’s overt. It’s obvious. It’s undeniable. What it also is, is cmpletely ignored by CBS, The New York Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc.. You name a major media outlet, they’ll be on the ignoring this issue list as well. So, people like me have to rely on Rush Limbaugh and Michele Malkin. Some blogs are taking a little credit because Feinstein resigned from MILCON this week. She really didn’t have any reason to stay on MILCON any longer tho, her husband sold out of Perini and URS two years ago. Now, a lot of people will dismiss the credibility of this story because I cite Rush and Michele. I’m sure that couldn’t make Nancy, Howard, and Dianne any happier.
It just amazes me how people like Dan Rather could look the country in the face and blame it all on Dick Cheney, knowing the entire damn time it was Feinstein and the Dems making all the money off the deaths of our soldiers. And ya wanna know something else? It was that same MILCON committee shelling out billions to Feinstein at Feinstein’s direction that failed to provide adequate body armor to our troops in Iraq. And, it was that same MILCON committee handing out billions to Feinstein at the direction of Feinstein that failed to provide adequate health services to our troops that the media is whining about now.
Can we assume my "investigative" abilities are that much superior to CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox, the LA Times, the NY Times, or even the BBC? Or, can we assume that because Dianne Feinstein is an uber-liberal Democrat woman from California they all chose to look the other way while she profited off the deaths of our soldiers?
Regardless, there’s a LOT of explaining that needs to be done by Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean. However, I doubt CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN will time to squeeze this topic in while they continue to dedicate every waking second to Gonzales firing a bunch of lawyers.
