I was recently reading some posted comments online about President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, and one commenter suggested: "Could the case be made that the 'moderate Democrats' need to be the ones to step up here and do the right thing in opposing this nominee?"

My reaction:

First of all, that seems like a rational question to ask. And, yes, the case could be made, and should be made, but the watchword unfortunately seems to be: "Please don't hold your breath." In other words, no disrespect intended, but -- are you kidding?

For example, where were those "moderate Democrats," those so-called Blue Dog Democrats, when the UNREAD and NONstimulating "stimulus" bill was passed? Or when the PORK LADEN "budget" was passed? Or when still more billions, even trillions, in generational deficit and debt are spent -- and even Obama says such debt is "unsustainable" -- in a vain attempt to SPEND us out of a recession? Is that how YOUR checkbook works? Mine neither. But then, neither of us can just print more money, like Team Obama can, either.

However, I agree, it would seem that at least SOME Blue Dogs would show they have some common sense about all this, but, so far, not much of a whimper. They, like other Democrats, are too busy either wagging their tails over being in power or running around chasing their tails, fascinated, like a puppy with a squeaky ball, with any and all bright and shiny new spending ideas they can play with. So, sorry to say, don't expect any help from them on something like this Supreme Court nominee, either.

Sotomayor is "qualified" -- more so than Myers was but probably less so than Thomas, or even Bork, would have been -- because of her long time on the federal bench. But she certainly is not one of the "best qualified." She really is a twofer quota fill for Obama in payment for the Hispanic vote in particular and the liberal vote in general. She seems to lack the depth and breadth of legal intellect or personal charm to sway the current 5/4 court, which is good, making her basically a one-to-one replacement for the liberal Souter. So, as far as the Court is concerned, this nomination is probably a wash.

But watch out for Obama's NEXT nominee. THAT will be the deal-breaking nominee. There are lots of things I don't like about Obama, but I have to give credit where credit is due -- and he is a shrewd politician. The Sotomayor nomination could be his testing of the waters, to see how far and hard he can push an even more liberal pick next time around. Hopefully, he won't get another chance until 2010 or after and, by then, Republicans should have regained enough in the Senate, if not the Congress overall, to kill the chances, if appropriate, of whomever he nominates next.

Being Vegetarian Shrinks Brain

Becoming a vegetarian could be good for the planet, but it's bad for your brain. Scientists at England's Oxford University have found that vegetarians are six times more likely to have brain shrinkage than those who include meats in their diets. The cause could be a lack of vitamins. Vegetarians are more likely than meat-eaters to be deficient in vitamin B12, which is mainly found in meats, and a B12 deficiency is known to cause anemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Oxford researchers examined 107 people between the age of 61 and 87 using physical exams, memory tests and brain scans. When the same volunteers were retested five years later, those with the lowest amounts of B12 had the most brain atrophy. And here's the political twist -- you knew there had to be one, right? -- more liberals than conservatives are vegetarians. Ba-rump-bump!

Obama Claims Health Care Costs Will Be Reduced
 
Obama has secured the commitments of six major trade associations to reduce the cost of health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years. The groups involved say that the success of their commitments rests on the passage of Obama's health care reforms (well, of course they do -- they had a meeting with the president and he wants universal health care - besides, maybe they're afraid he might just take their companies over, too), but no concrete methods of reducing spending have been detailed (then, uh, how do they know they can reduce health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years?). Obama predicts cost savings of $2,500 a year for a family of four. Huh? If you don't yet have a plan (there's that pesky word again -- like with GITMO) and you therefore don't know if you can realize the 20% savings, how can you say that would result in savings of $2,500 for a family of four? Just because it sounds good? Guess so. It's something like Team Obama saying all the time that they will either create X-number of jobs or save X-number of jobs. Create, I can understand, because you can check to see how many they created, but saved gives me a problem, because it seems a lot like proving a negative. You know, like, here's how many we didn't lose. Again, huh? How do you know, even if you hadn't done whatever it was that you did, that you still wouldn't have lost them -- that they might have been saved, or survived, in spite of whatever you did? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

Obama's Budget

Consider these facts, compiled by the Institute for Policy Innovation: Under the Obama budget, the nonpartisan, non-ideological Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the national debt will soar over the next 10 years from 40 percent of GDP today to 82.4 percent. Obama's budget also states that total federal borrowing will grow by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27 percent in one year! The budget Obama proposed for this year increases federal spending by an incredible 34 percent, just compared to the previous year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever.

Pelosi's Tuna

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa, employing 75% of the Samoan work force. In January 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage, thereby making Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's. In 2008, when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill for $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa." Can we all say "payback"? Or is that "payoff"? And Pelosi has called the Bush administration corrupt? Oh, please! So, remember to serve your next Star-Kist tuna dish with ample side dishes of hubris and hypocrisy, please. 

Napolitano Again

Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently declared that "...crossing the border illegally is not a crime per se." What? Makes me want to ask what part of "illegally" don't you understand? Or, if se didn't do it and it therefore wasn't per se, then who did it? I couldn't make this stuff up, folks. I'm just not that imaginative. Napolitano is definitely gaining on Biden for gaffes.....but I don't think she'll ever catch him. 

A little dated now, but still a goody -- my untiring communiques with my U.S. Representative and Senators

"I cannot believe you voted FOR the pork-laden Omnibus Act of 2009. At a time when our economy is struggling, at a time when President Obama has at least said he forswears earmarks, this legislation contained 8,500 - 9,000 of them, 60 percent by Democrats and 40 percent by Republicans. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

At least President Obama was ashamed enough about going back on his promise to eliminate earmarks that he signed it into law behind closed doors instead of at a public signing. I guess even he doesn't have that much hubris.

And why pass the Omnibus bill anyway? Why not just do a CR (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government for the rest of the year? The Democrats set up the current half-year funding requirement by only appropriating enough for the first half of the FY, probably in hopes that 'their guy' would be in the White House by the time it was time to fund the second half and with the intention of loading it up with pork in the process.

Shame on all of you who voted for this abomination of an Omnibus Act and shame on President Obama for not sticking to his word. He should have taken his red Sharpie and lined the pork spending out, vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. Shame on all of you who voted for this overblown and 'oink-ful' legislation."
 
Guess it's a good thing I didn't feel like telling them what I really thought, huh?

AIG 90% Bonus Tax

Here's a "barn burner" I sent my U.S. Representative, Gerry Connolly, back in March. I got an automated reply thanking me for my "interest," but I haven't seen much change in his performance since then, sad to say:

"Although you're still a freshman Congressman, your voting record so far is making clear that you vote lockstep along Democratic party lines and in keeping with Speaker Pelosi's desires. Your motto seems to be -- No independent thinking or action here, thank you!

Have you ever thought that maybe you were elected to be a Blue Dog Democrat? One with a little independence, one at least sometimes more concerned about his district, his state and his country than just his party?

Your voting for the targeted and punitive AIG 90% Bonus Tax is just the latest example of your Democratic party compliant ways and was an outrageously flagrant abuse and overreaching of the Congressional taxing authority.

Not only was it ex post facto, a bill of attainder, and therefore an unconstitutional overreach by Congress, it was also Democratic party political posturing of the most obvious and egregious kind -- done to appease the public that its Congress identified with its outrage and was doing something, as well as, and more pointedly, to obfuscate how many Democrats (at least Senator Dodd, Secretary Geithner, and some senior White House staffer, if not the President himself) were involved in allowing the AIG bonuses in the first place. You know, tucked away in that legislation which nobody read but Democrats produced and rushed to overwhelmingly vote for? Haste does sometimes make waste, or at least cause problems, doesn't it?

It's one thing to cast a populous vote "for the people," to symbolize the outrage of Americans over bonuses being paid to the very people who caused their companies to collapse and necessitated the use of taxpayer money to bail them out. But it's quite another thing to connive to vote as "cover" and "distraction" for mistakes your party made, and still quite another thing yet to ensure that such a vote is at least constitutional. You were elected to not only do the popular thing, your party's thing, but also the right thing, the legal thing, the constitutional thing. Your oath of office says so.

This is not a time in our country when simply going along to get along will suffice, Congressman. Increasingly, the American people are dissatisfied with their Congress, and not only the two major political parties but also individual Senators and Representatives are being tracked and examined. Accountability is not now expected of only your party but also of you personally.

We are watching, Congressman Connolly, and counting on you to do only the right things."