Dan Cleary

Meet Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). Intelligence Quotient: #DIV/0!

Think this guy believes in global warming too?

Hang in there until at least the 1:30 mark. You won't be disappointed.

PREEMPTIVE UPDATE: Listening to the audio as I write, I hear my question has been answered in the affirmative.

h/t: Dan Riehl.

Obama Unveils New Energy Policy: Drill, Maybe*, Drill!

*Fat chance.

h/t: Michelle Malkin.

Alan Grayson, Plainly Described

This sounds like it could have come straight from the pages of Michael Barone's biennial classic The Almanac of American Politics:

Perhaps one of the dumbest galoomfs in congress is the shaven Geico caveman, Alan Grayson. You heard of the guy who worked at M&M’s and cost them thousands because he threw out all the W’s? That was Grayson’s smarter brother.

Click here to read the rest.

DOUBLE WARNING: Strong 'lefty hate mail' potty mouth, and disturbingly close-up mug shot of Grayson.

Via iOwnTheWorld.

Obama: We Haven't Picked a Church Because My Messianic Glow Is a Huge Distraction

You buyin' that?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Via Breitbart.

The Obama Doctrine - As Articulated By Matthew "Fried Brain" Modine

"Why Can’t We Just Sit Down With Bin Laden And Say: Hey Man, Why Are You Mad At Me?

h/t: Allahpundit.

Robert Gibbs' World Has Just Been Rocked

**Darth Vader...is Luke's father?!?!**

Via Swamp Politics.

SHOCKING: Waxman to Rap Big Business Executives on the Knuckles for Expressing Valid, Self-Evident Concerns About ObamaCare's Costs

Whoa. Did not see this one coming:

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republicans describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee. That subcommittee just happens to be chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who held out his vote on health care reform until a few hours before final passage on March 21, giving the bill's opponents the unfounded hope that he might vote against it.

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Apparently, the poor saps running these corporations never got the DNC memo outlining the truth about ObamaCare, as corroborated by irrefutable "independent analyses."

So Batboy will just have to explain it to them:

h/t: RealClearPolitics; photo via Wizbang.

T.P. in D.C.

h/t: Flopping Aces.

Sarah Palin's Folly: Stumping For John McCain

One of my very favorite bloggers on the Right - Powerline's John Hinderaker - wrote a post earlier today entitled 'Biker Girl Campaigns for McCain'. By Hinderaker's own admission, his sole motivation for writing it was to show a perfectly gratuitous photograph of Palin looking great in a black leather biker jacket on the campaign trail.

No complaints there.

However, I have a bone to pick with the rest of John's comments:

Sarah Palin was in Arizona yesterday, campaigning for John McCain in his primary contest against former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. This was an appropriate demonstration of loyalty toward the man who opened the door to fame and fortune for her. Beyond that, Palin's support McCain is right on the merits and displays her almost unerring judgment in political matters.

Like most conservatives, I sometimes disagree with John McCain, and on those occasions he can be an infuriating opponent. But he describes himself as a "proud conservative," and that's how he votes a large majority of the time. Moreover, while he is an imperfect Republican, McCain is a great man. He is a warrior, one of the staunchest characters ever to participate in politics, a modern-day Andrew Jackson. We need him. If the Republican tent ever grows too small to contain the likes of John McCain, we are in deep trouble.

Moreover, McCain was the party's Presidential nominee just two years ago. The last thing Republicans need to do is to start eating our own, like the Democrats when they drummed Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman out of their party.

Now, Sarah Palin endorsing John McCain per se is understandable. I still don't like it one bit, but I'll cut her some slack. Remember, she threw in with McCain before conservative J.D. Hayworth entered the race. And with McCain expecting only token opposition from the Democrats in the general election, he was for a time the most conservative man in Arizona's U.S. Senate race - if only technically and by default.

BUT...J.D. Hayworth is in the race now. He is a far preferable choice than McCain for conservatives on many issues, particularly immigration. Meanwhile, Palin has transitioned from merely supporting McCain (presumably out of a sense of loyalty) to actively stumping for the guy.

I thought Palin was supposed to be helping elect conservatives - not campaigning against them.

Furthermore, in this instance Palin is supporting the very man who deserves unique (though not exclusive) blame for putting Barack Obama in the White House, for the following three reasons (at least):

1. McCain-Feingold. The effect of this now officially unconstitutional campaign finance 'reform' legislation was to allow 'non-partisan' (read: radical left) outfits like MoveOn.org to thrive and to bestow massive political influence upon filthy rich liberal donors like George Soros. Think that played a role in Obama's victory?

2. Comprehensive Immigration Reform (aka Amnesty for Illegal Aliens). Read this and you'll get a sense of how McCain's convoluted stance on illegal immigration lost him the conservative vote in droves in 2008. Think that played a role in Obama's victory?

3. The Bank Bailouts of September 2008. McCain went out of his way to put himself on basically the same page as Barack Obama when it came to bailing out big banks. In an election year that favored any warm body the Democrats ended up nominating, this gave voters one less reason to not vote for Barack Obama. Think that played a role in Obama's victory?

Don't get me wrong - I'd probably still support John McCain vs. 'unopposed' or 'garden variety Democrat.' Probably. But J.D. Hayworth is a no-brainer for conservatives vis-a-vis John McCain, and one has to assume Palin would be in Hayworth's corner were it not for the fact that she was McCain's hand-picked running mate in 2008.

So I'll ask the question: Does personal loyalty trump conservative principles for Sarah Palin?

UPDATE: Many thanks to Instapundit for linking.

UPDATE #2: And look at this, Hot Air links! I really need to write more.

Chuck Grassley Beats ObamaCare With a Wet Noodle

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - ever the peculiar one - turns in a perfectly mealy-mouthed interview here with Sarah Palin stalker Andrea Mitchell.

After talking up the good stuff that's in ObamaCare, which I guess includes fun new layers of government regulations for doctors and non-profits to contend with, Grassley concedes that the "bad outweighs the good."

Ya think?

In other breaking news, a fleet of 18-wheelers filled with cement outweighs a Smart Car.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Via Breitbart.