“Republicans don’t want real reform, because for more than 10 years they have benefited from their culture of corruption. Instead of seizing the opportunity today to enact real reform, Republicans once again put the special interests first, leaving the American people to pay for the Republican culture of corruption.” — (Not My)- Feb. 1, 2006 Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Well, well, well.   Hypocrisy, thy name is Nancy (and Harry, and Barry, and Charlie, and Rahm and Murtha, etc., etc.,)

The Texas financier accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday of “massive ongoing fraud” was a generous political donor who gave more heavily to Democrats.

Since 2000, R. Allen Stanford, the chief of the Stanford Financial Group in Houston, his wife and company gave $2.2 million in political contributions — $1.7 million to Democratic candidates and committees — according to Federal Election Commission records.

The most recent donation on record was $300,000 from Stanford Financial Group to the Democratic Governors Association, a so-called 527 group not subject to campaign contribution limits.

Other big beneficiaries included the Democrats’ congressional campaign committees, which received $1.2 million over the years, and their Republican counterparts, which got $322,000, including a $28,500 personal donation last year to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Stanford and his companies gave $128,500 to the Republican National Committee, plus $2,000 to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), $4,000 to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), $4,000 to Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), $4,000 to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and $4,800 to the committees of Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), among other contributions.

Under Nancy’s breaking the “Republican culture of corruption”, she has successfully cowed MILLIONS of dollars to keep her and the Socialist Democrats of America in power.

Let’s take a bet on which of the parties’ groups and Members of Congress return the money… and which don’t.   I’m confident Charlie Rangel will be the last to cough up his green.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sometimes, our critics, in reacting to our posts, end up making our points for us. As Bruce puts it, in his comment to my latest post, “All one needs to do is read the comments from ‘outraged’ liberals in this post to reinforce Dan’s point.

In that post, I wondered why some gay marriage advocates brand all gay marriage opponents haters rather than engage their arguments.  In the thread following that post, many such advocates didn’t even bother to acknowledge my argument, but instead resorted to insult.

One critic even trotted out the standard insult used by gay liberals to slander gay conservatives, “self-loathing” while assuming we came by our ideas via “religious teaching/indoctrination” and ignoring facts.  And while busy making assumptions about us, he accused us (and our defenders) of being impervious to “reasoned discussion”!  WOW.  Well, he did make me smile. 

And if, as another critic put it, “anyone using the traditional’ definition of marriage as the bulwark of their argument is arguing a losing case,” why then do so many opponents of that definition resort to ad hominem? If it were a losing argument, couldn’t then they easily rebut it via reasoned discussion?

To be sure, some of our critics do make valid points, a number of which echo things I have said on this blog, notably about “no-fault divorce [being] a greater threat to social cohesion than gay marriage.”

It was, however, one critic whose comment really caught my eye:

You have no idea what this student presented in his speech. It was enough to get an experienced professor as well as two students rather riled up. He could have been saying hateful things about homosexuals, which for some reason you gloss over and assume that because he was defending traditional marriage that he must have been arguing in good faith. (Really, can’t you just learn to love the big gay homo that you are?)

First, note his last snide aside, assuming yet again (yawn!) this particular gay conservative is self-hating (as it seems we all must be to fit into his narrow world view).  Yeah, maybe the guy did say hateful things about homosexuals, but does that justify the reaction of the professor, calling him a “fascist bastard”?

As to getting the experienced professor and students riled up, well, just look at the thread and this man’s own comment.  He does get riled up pretty easily, doesn’t he? (more…)

If you thought your personal financial situation was bad in November, 2008….. you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.  Obamanomics is killing our future already!

Michelle Malkin:  On Nov. 4, after Barack Obama clinched the White House, the market closed at 9,625.28.

In mid-morning trading today, the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to 7,606.53.

Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period — during the first few months of his presidency.

REUTERS:  DOW HITS 10-YEAR LOW

Here’s what today alone looks like on the Dow Jones (via Drudge)

HopeandChange??   YIKES!

I’m stocking up on essentials…

UPDATE: Oh yeah, and have you noticed that gas at the pump costs more now than when President Bush left office?

So prices at the pump will probably keep going up no matter what happens to the benchmark price of crude oil.

“We’re going definitely over $2, and I bet we’ll hit $2.50 before spring,” said Tom Kloza, publisher and chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. “This is going to be an unusual year.”

On the last day of 2008, gas went for $1.62 on average, according to the auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express, a company that tracks transportation data.

Why is that?  Read the article. (h/t – Instapundit)

Help fight Obamanomics.  Buy a bumper sticker!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  To those critics who claim that Obama can’t possibly “own” the decline in the stock market sincehis election, recall that these indices are a kind of futures market, with investors buying in (or selling as the case may be) based on how they believe the economy will do.  Note how on Election Day 2004, the markets tooka tumble when it looked like John Kerry would win.  And how they rebounded when it turned out he did not.

So, in the wake of the Democrat’s elections, investors were taking their cues from what he said and whom he appointed.

Why do some gay marriage advocates refuse to argue with supporters of the traditional definition of marriage, and instead label them as haters.*  Fifteen years ago, maybe even ten, only a handful of people in this country would think that marriage referred to anything but a monogamous union between one man and one woman.

That includes some people with otherwise “spotless” (in the eyes of liberal gay groups) records on gay issues.  Many of those include champions of state recognition of same-sex civil unions (and other pro-gay legislation), just so long as they’re not called marriage.

Even Barack Obama has defended social conservatives who favor the traditional definition of marriage.  Heck, he favors such a definition himself.

A reader e-mailed me an article which showed how politicized, how politically correct, our discussion of same-sex marriage has become. Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College, says a “professor called him a ‘fascist bastard’ and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.”

When Lopez complained, the professor threatened to have him expelled. That student is suing.

Instead of responding to the student with argument, the professor responded with ad hominem attacks. Not a very good education in public speaking in my view.

(more…)