The Democratic Party--wasting your tax dollars since...

Get this. And this is another one of those "No, I am not making this up" deals. OK, ready? Democtratic senators Hillary Ramrod Clinton and Schmuck Chumer, both D-NY, want to take ONE MILLION DOLLARS of your tax money--you know, that money that gets taken out of your paycheck after you've earned it, then sent to the mama pig that is Washington--to build...are you ready...a

Museum at Bethel Woods, which is dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival experience and will feature “An interpretation of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Fair” exhibit in 2008, according to the museum’s website. The earmark is at the request of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.

(from Americans for Prosperity, via Free Republic Online)

Yeah, that's just what the world needs! A monument to one of the largest collection of hippies, Communists, and others who are notorious for not bathing. Because, by golly, we need to remember what a filthy pig sty that weekend was.

So, is that all? Of course that's not all. Sens. Ramrod and Schmuck also want

$500,000 for the New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium, a project to scan images of herbs and post them online. The earmark is requested by New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Of course, they're not the only lefties who want to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR MONEY on reseacrh into the effects of cotton candy on tooth decay. There's Vermont Senator Pat I'm-a-Leaky-Leahy

$100,000 to fund the celebration of Lake Champlain’s 400th Anniversary – an event that doesn’t take place until 2009. The earmark is at the request of Vermont Senator Pat Leahy.

And, the not-so-distinguished "gentleman" from Hawai'i, Senator Daniel In-No-Way, who wants

$250,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which includes among its programs making and sailing ancient canoes from Hawaii to Japan. The earmark is requested by Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

But, the winner for the "sounds like he's been appropriating funds for research into marijuana use" is none other than Tom Harkin of Iowa--

$100,000 for “Lighten Up Iowa,” an online program encouraging people to lose weight while also preaching the benefits of vegan diets. The earmark is requested by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin.

So, congratulations, to all you liberals who have nothing better to do than take our hard-earned tax dollars and give them to loooney, left-wing causes. Farewewll for today. Or, as they say in your favorite country, Dasvidania!!

New president of Southern Baptist Convention

They could do a whole lot worse (via Between Two Worlds):

Johnny Hunt, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., has been elected the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

It's not a huge surprise: he's a megachurch pastor with a lot of support among the SBC leadership. It is a bit of a surprise that he won by so much. With 3,100 votes, he had more than twice as many as the next candidate, fellow Atlanta-area megachurch pastor Frank Cox of North Metro Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Ga. With six candidates for the position -- the most since 1979, when the conservative resurgence in the denomination began -- many expected the vote to go to a runoff.

What does Hunt's presidency mean for the SBC? So far, it's hard to tell, though I'm sure the Baptist bloggers will be full of analysis tonight. Hunt's main emphases were preaching and missions (he was particularly vocal about finding new ways of funding missions). But his stances on controversies within the denominations may have had an effect as well.

It's clear that Hunt is no fan of the growing Calvinist movement within the Southern Baptist Convention. He's hosting a major conference to refute Calvinism at his church in November. But most of the candidates were not friendly to Calvinism, and Hunt has given indications that he's not out to purge the denomination of Reformed influences.

Now, Johnny Hunt may be firm in his Arminian beliefs, while I (in case you can't tell) am a full-bloomin' TULIP. That said, what does this mean for the SBC? It was a very good decision. Our church has sent many of us men to the men's conference they hold at First Baptist Woodstock every year. And never once have I ever heard him equivocate on the supremacy of Jesus Christ. You will never hear him say anyting other than Jesus is the only way to salvation. In fact, other than the fact that he is Arminian, I have never heard him say anyting that waters down or takes away from the gospel message.

Pastor Hunt even went so far as to say,

"I am not overwhelmingly concerned about Calvinism," Hunt told Baptist Press two weeks ago. "I am concerned about hyper-Calvinism, simply being defined as those that take election to the point that they feel that the Gospel should not even be shared with the whole world. ... I trust that Calvinists, and those who love Jesus of other persuasions, would come together for the common cause of making Jesus Christ known to the nations. There is plenty of room for all of us in this Baptist family."

Now, when he talks about "those who love Jesus of other persuasions" he is not talking about accepting Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians. He is talking about people whose doctrines may be different, but who worship the same Jesus (which is not true of Mormons). Would I have rather seen Al Mohler get the nod? Yes. But let me make this abundantly and adamantly clear--Johnny Hunt is a wonderful man of God and will fill the position he was chosen to very well.

Because, you see, whether we believe that God chooses us, or we believe that we choose God--it doesn't matter. I happen to believe that the Bible is quite clear on the matter, and that we cannot come to know Christ as our Lord and Savior unless God draws us to Him (You know the passages. John 6:44. Ephesians 1:3-6. 1st Corinthians 12:3). But will Pastor Hunt take the SBC in a direction that steers it away from the necessity of submitting to Christ Jesus as God in the flesh, as Lord and Savior in order to be saved? Absolutely not. That much, we do agree on.

This ain't your daddy's Democratic party

It's more like your strung-out, burnt-out, hippie, dope-smokin' Woodstock-lovin', Iron Butterfly-listenin', wierd uncle's Democratic party. Because, my friends, that is who is runnin' this show.

It ain't Howard "I have a scream" Dean. It ain't Queen Nan from SanFran. It ain't Harry "I made an illegal land deal and all I got was this lousy Senate leadership position" Reid. This party belongs to The Daily Kooks Kos, MoveOn.org, Michael "Has anybody seen where my last brain cell went?" Moore, and the 9/11 truthers.

via Atlas Shrugs:

Every morning, representatives from a cluster of anti-war groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.

Shortly after, in a cramped Washington meeting room, they convene for a call with organizers across the country. They hash out plans for rallies. They sketch out talking points for "rapid response" news conferences. They discuss polls they have conducted in several dozen crucial congressional districts and states across the country.

This started way back in January, with Dick "Turban" Durbin asking the moonbats over at dKooks dKos to set their agenda. Leave it to Pravda the NY Slimes to take months on end to finally figure it out. But, if it had been Republicans sitting down with Evil Glenn Reynolds, oh the hue and cry that would have come up from that cesspool on the Hudson they call the Times!

Next verse, same as the first

"The MOST ethical Congress...EVER!!!!!" Er, something. Apparently Dingy Harry doesn't care enough about being "ethical" to allow you, the public, who pays his salary doesn't get anything back in return, to know what you're paying for. If he did, then why did he and his cronies feel the need to gut the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007", also known as the "earmark reform bill"? (via Porkbusters):

Porkbusters obtained the latest version of the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007’’, and as expected, the Democratic leadership has worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions.

Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:

--The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.

--The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.

--The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.

--The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.

But don't take our word for it: you can download a PDF of the new text right here. Check it out, and if you find more nasty surprises in there, please leave a comment and tell us what you've discovered...

Over at Right Wing News, they ahve posted a chart so you can more easily follow what WAS in the bill, and how the Democrats have changed it to keep everything secret.

Now, you've probably heard the term "earmark" quite a bit in the news, especially when it comes to many in the "most ethical congress...EVER!!!" putting in their requests for more money to go to catfish hatcheries in Lonesome Turtle, NV or, say, a museum commemorating the human dungpile that was Woodstock. But just what is an "earmark"? Well, according to an article in Slate Magazine online,

No one can agree on the precise definition. In general, the word "earmark" refers to any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing—a given project, say, or location, or institution. For example, if Congress passed a budget that gave a certain amount of money to the National Park Service as a whole, no one would consider it an earmark. But if Congress added a line to the budget specifying that some of that money must go toward the preservation of a single building—definitely an earmark.

Some earmarks are easy to spot, like this year's $500,000 grant to the Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C. But an expenditure doesn't have to be an earmark just because it's specific. Defense spending bills, for example, come with a very detailed accounting of how each dollar will be spent. When the DoD submits a request for funds, it might tell Congress exactly how much money would be used to buy a particular kind of fighter plane. In another context, this level of specificity would merit the scarlet E; for a defense bill, it's business as usual. (Using the broadest definition, you could say that all defense spending is "earmarked.")

in other words, it's pork. And people like Dingy Harry, and "Happy Jack" Murtha, and many of the other "reformers" don't want you to know that, contrary to what they told you during their campaigns, they don't have any more desire to raise ethical standards than they do to have their eyeballs plucked out. But, the American voters bought their lies, and now we're stuck with them. And the beat goes on...