Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian – Page 88

Welcome, Conservative Grapevine readers

Thank you, John Hawkins, Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine, for making A Conservative Lesbian your site of the day!

While I prepare another post to welcome you, I have some recent posts that I want as many people as possible to see so they understand that Obama’s allure AND contradictions originate in his sociopathy. Use this knowledge to fight his devastating plans for this country and for you! I explain in these three posts:

“Understanding Obama”

“The chilling explanation of why Obama is cool”

“Why ridicule is Obama’s Kryptonite”

Bonus:

“Is Obama’s ‘mandatory’ voluntary service corps the slippery slope to the Weathermen’s vision of re-education death camps?”

If you want to get to know me, all my writing about gay marriage is founded in my own, which I describe here, with photos:

“Gay marriage”

I say why I think liberals and Democrats will never be the ones to legalize gay marriage here:

“Gay marriage as Penelope’s web vs. Nixon to China”

I hope you click my “Humor” category. When I have my photo taken for the “About me” page, I’m thinking of standing next to a unicorn, which is less rare than a conservative lesbian with a sense of humor:

My observations on Ann Coulter: “Scent of a Woman”

And Roseanne Barr: “They say that lesbians hate men”

And dear, anti-gay-marriage Robert Stacy McCain at The Other McCain:

“How Stacy McCain became irresistible to women”

“How Robert Stacy McCain became irresistible to men”

Bonus punk-smacking:

“Does Ross Douthat denounce porn so he can deduct his collection as a business expense?” (My conclusion may surprise you!)

OK, when you see my photos in this post, you’ll know why I’m going to stop now and go to my aerobics class: “I fell in love at CPAC.”

Thanks for stopping by, and y’all come back now!

Update on 'If he's just not that into her, he's a FOOL!'

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

OK, if I didn’t have the cute photo I might not be writing this update about Cuban Diva BFF’s blind date awhile back — the one that never happened.

It wasn’t that he was just not that into her.

It was more like he, a man in his forties, did not have the ability to commit to a plan that was more than 15 minutes in the future.

Also, while he could not bring himself to go dutch with Cuban Diva BFF at Starbuck’s, he did inquire about her annual income.

So we’re sure he has a practical streak.

Not that there should be any suspense about this, but he has no chance whatsoever with Cuban Diva BFF now — that’s the beauty of having standards.

P.S. That is not Cuban Diva BFF and Angelo Gatto (her kitty’s nom de blog) in the photo.

'The Economist' parched by blast from 'Hot Air'; plus, did A.I.G. became the face of capitalism as Obama applied Saul Alinsky's Rule 12?

H/T Michelle Malkin

The Economist endorsed Obama for president and now is having buyers’ remorse, apparently in the hope of salvaging some of its credibility given the all-consuming, prosperity-sucking black hole socialist coup Obama’s presidency has turned out to be in just two months.

Ed Morrissey blasts their tardy admission of misgivings at Hot Air here.

To those of us who saw this coming before the election, Morrissey’s post is a delicious vindication and balm to the soul. Except for the part about the U.S. is still going down the economic drain and coming under Obama’s totalitarian regime. That still sucks.

I only have one point to add, which is that given the Obama administration knew about the A.I.G. bonuses and any idiot could predict the fury they would cause, I think the intention behind giving the bonuses was to use them to enrage the public. Why? Because it is Rule 12 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to foment rage by giving your target a specific face. Obama’s just going by the book.

What did Obama get out of fomenting the public’s rage? He was able to direct public hatred and destructive impulses against capitalism itself, against the successful and wealthy and against financial institutions. The purpose of this ginned up rage was to create a crisis to lay the groundwork for another power grab by Obama, who wants to expand the executive branch’s authority beyond the ability to take over banks in particular circumstances to a range of other financial institutions as well.

I found a convenient list of Alinsky’s rules here:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Fisking and punk smacking for Monique Stuart, Aisle 10

Monique Stuart at HotMES is on about de-criminalizing recreational drugs today, as a follow-up to Obama’s town hall meeting, which I would leave alone although I disagree. But because she based her argument on conflating pharmaceutical drugs, aka medicines, defined as “any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease,” with recreational chemicals that frequently have addiction as a side effect, I must administer unto her the first fisking and punk smacking of my blog.

The indented material is Monique’s.

I’m sorry that Mexico is having experiencing problems related to drugs. And, I’m sorry America has its own drug-related problems to deal with. But, drugs aren’t the problem; they are a symptom of the problem.

1. The drugs are a symptom? Could this symptom be cured by, say, penicillin?

We pretend to be a culture that is against drugs, yet we are not. We have a “War on Drugs,” as new drugs are advertised every day. At some point, our government made the decision that some drugs were acceptable and others were not. This is where the problem lies.

2. We do not as a culture have contradictory attitudes towards drugs because, as a culture, most of us are able to tell the difference between drugs that have the purpose of curing a disease, slowing its progress or alleviating a symptom. Legal drugs do one or all of those three things. That is why we, through our government, aka our elected representatives, have decided that these drugs, aka medicines, are acceptable.

Illegal drugs are taken recreationally. They are not necessary. The ones that are highly addictive are extremely dangerous and change the behavior of the people taking them for the worse. That is why we have decided they are unacceptable.

It’s one big contradiction. Either we’re against drugs, or were for them. Make up your mind. Heroin isn’t acceptable, but clinics hand out methadone, while doctors prescribe Oxycontin (which makes you feel like you’re on heroin from what I’ve been told).

3. Do read up on logic and “false choice” and the “straw man,” which are the names of the devices that you use above.

We do not have to be either for drugs, or against them. It is totally legitimate to pick and choose.

So we are not being at all capricious or contradictory at all when we legalize antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, hormone replacement therapies, chemotherapies, pain medications and a host of other pharmaceuticals that have targeted and legitimate purposes.

Neither is it capricious or contradictory to ban drugs that are recreational and highly addictive. An addiction may be triggered in some people with one dose. The addiction dramatically changes the behavior of that person for the worse. It is worthwhile for society to make and enforce laws to guard against this.

The reason it’s a contradiction is because drugs aren’t inherently bad, just as guns aren’t inherently bad. It’s how people choose to use them. To be quite honest, I don’t see the difference between someone who smokes a joint at the end of the day versus the person who is having a couple martini’s. In fact, one could argue, the former is preferable to the latter.

4. Beg to differ. Crack is inherently bad because it is addictive. Ditto for heroin. The addiction by definition removes the ability of people to choose whether or how to use them.

Why aren’t all drugs, legal, though? Whether prescribed or proscribed, all drugs are the same: most offer some benefit when taken in moderation. As of the year 2000, the “War on Drugs” was estimated to cost over $40 billion, annually. I’m sure it’s costing much more, now.

Legalizing drugs would put the Mexican drug gangs out of business a lot quicker and a lot more effectively than anything our two governments can come up with. Put that at the top of you checklist and you should be done.

5. No, it would legitimize the fortunes of the drug lords, so they would stop doing their legitimate money-laundering businesses like the New York Times — a big chunk of which is now owned by a Mexican “real estate developer” — although I bet now that it’s his PR puppet it is not technically money-laundering but a legitimate business expense, so bad example — and they still would not be willing to pay taxes to support water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, electricity, schools, roads and hospitals for all citizens of Mexico.

(It also is worth noting that Mexico is an oil-rich country that certainly could afford to do these things for its people if its people ever really wanted these things to happen.)

Obama mocked his online audience in his “town hall meeting” yesterday—to the laughter of the elitist DC crowd that surrounded him in the room—for asking about legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.

You’re right, Mr. President, it may not remedy our economic woes, but why can’t this be taken into consideration? I believe it’s a serious question, with serious implications, and should be seriously addressed. You are not a comedian, Mr. President. Stop trying to be funny!

I don’t smoke pot or do any other illegal drugs. I don’t take many legal drugs, either. Maybe some Tylenol, here and there. Lately, I have been hitting up the Sudafed (I have some cold that I have named The Illness that won’t seem to go away). But, what’s the difference between the person who pops some Xanax for their anxiety and the person who takes a hit from the bong?

All legal drugs are achieving some goal that could be achieved by an illegal drug, they’re just doing it synthetically instead of naturally. Where do you think the drug companies came up with the idea in the first place? Mexico wouldn’t be having the issues it is, and neither would America, if drugs became legal. People are going to use drugs and some of those people will abuse drugs. The legality of the drugs doesn’t matter.

6.First, Obama mocks people because he is a narcissist and that is what they do to people who have shamed them. Obama does not have a sense of humor.

Second, WTF??? Aspirin might come from willow bark and digoxin from foxglove and penicillin and the -mycin antibiotics from fungi, but I’d love to have your source for where baclofen, carbamazepine, phenytoin, Avonex, and metoprolol — just for starters — came from in the wild.

Or do you think that ALL drugs are really some form of opioid?

Could you REALLY not have have bothered to read up on countries that HAVE decriminalized recreational drugs? Try reading this, as a sample. Decriminalizing recreational drugs has multiplied problems, not mitigated them.

Addendum: This issue has a face for me — my brother’s best friend, who died this time last year of liver failure due to 30-plus years of taking methadone, the treatment for his heroin addiction. He was so big and strong in his youth I thought nothing could ever beat him. We all miss him so.

'The most dangerous myth'

I came across a speech by Ronald Reagan during the fall 2008 presidential campaign where he talked about how he freed people from the grip of welfare when he was governor of California by running the state the way families have to mind their economic affairs, that is, keep their expenses within their means. He also talked about the number of taxes that went into a loaf of bread, all of which are passed on to the consumer, to illustrate that there’s really no such thing as lifting the tax burden from individuals by taxing businesses. I can’t find that speech today, but I did find this:

The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.

This is from Reagan’s speech at Hillsdale College in Michigan on Nov. 10, 1977. The transcription and audio are here.

I am amazed by how much more intelligent Reagan’s views on the economy have gotten over the years.

Girls, girls, girls! This is a CONSERVATIVE Jell-o wrestling match and proper attire will be worn at all times!

OK, I did not think it would be up to me as a lesbian to have to gavel the conservative blogosphere back to to order regarding the upcoming Jell-o wrestling grudge match between Suzanne Logan (aka “Clever S. Logan) and Monique Stuart (aka HotMES), but I see that I must! Order! Order! This blogosphere must come to order!

My first item of business is to smack down Jimmy at the Sundries Shack and remind him that I called referee first, and clearly have the best claim to impartiality, so he will just have to be quicker off the mark next time.

In addition, I rule that Dave C. at the Point of a Gun has no authority to determine the materials and rules of battle — in affairs of honor, it is the challenged party who chooses the weapons, and they have done been chosen as strawbery Jell-o and whipped cream. That is my ruling as referee!

Oh, if you are just tuning in, conservative blogger Monique Stuart challenged fellow conservative blogger Suzanne Logan to a Jell-o wrestling match for the affections of Jason Mattera, aka “Big Sexy.” Both the date and the place were left to be determined.

Next, I selflessly volunteered to referee the match, since, as a lesbian, um, something about not caring which one of them is on top as long as their hot, tight, wet, sticky t-shirts were clinging to their heaving bosoms … where was I?

Oh, right, THEN, a corrupting influence got to Suzanne Logan, tempting her to move the wrestling match to Richmond to mark the occasion of its taxpayer revolt Tea Party, with the flimsy inducement of a t-shirt. Oh, and Instapundit just had to pick that time to link a story about the media ignoring the Tea Party protests while giving oodles to ACORN for what was really just an average day of thuggery for them.

Well, anyway, once t-shirts got into the fray, things didn’t so much go downhill as drop off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote holding an Acme anvil.

Logan decided she would go the full monty for the principles of fiscal conservatism that she holds dear, in order to be certain that the mainstream media would show up and cover the event, you know, because the FCC would FINE them for showing scantily-clothed conservative women Jell-o wrestling as a political protest but WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM letting them show looped clips of NAKED conservative women Jell-o wresting until the cows come home, which they do later and later these days thanks to daylight savings time. Oh, wait, dammit to hell! It’s the OTHER way around!

Anyway, Monique called Suzanne’s bet, because it turns out that both young ladies aspired to careers in the porn industry from an early age, thus showing what a truly Big Tent conservatism is, gathering together the full spectrum of fiscal and social conservatives with liberal sprinklings of, what else, libertarians.

[Judging from the number of hits I get here that stay ZERO seconds, the world is filled with porn-crazed loons who think “conservative” + “lesbian” in MY blog name = porn. So I gather that an even larger contingent would click “conservative” + “naked Jell-o wrestling.” (I am SO going to Google key phrase hell, although, really, that ship sailed the second I identified myself as a lesbian.)]

While I must praise Suzanne and Monique for their zeal, I am going to have to insist on a dress code for the Jell-o wrestling — thong bikinis, Spandex hot pants and skin-tight t-shirts. Note the omission of bras. If either contestant wears a bra, I will be FORCED by the rules to remove it on the spot! Also, while I see that it is popular to bring tea bags to these events, I must caution the contestants that I will not permit tea bagging in the ring.

My sympathies to Jason Mattera, “Big Sexy,” who must be as surprised as I am that he has been thus callously cast under the bus as Suzanne and Monique quest to fulfill their childhood dreams of celebrity in one another’s arms.

Last, but not least, to Stacy here and here, Moe here and here, and Stephen — simmer down, boys, simmer down.

Update: I will naming the judges from among the pool of candidates who have listed my blog in their Blogroll as, “A Conservative Lesbian.” Little Miss Attila was first and therefore I name her the head judge. I am not limiting the number of judges — write a comment below or send an e-mail to let me know about adding you to the list. Suzanne and Monique each may earn points toward the decision of winner by adding me to their Blogrolls, as above, with extra points to the one who can prove she was first.

Update: Monique, aka HotMES, was first to the Blogroll and is now officially ahead on points. I wonder what Suzanne will do to try to claim the lead?

Update: Instapundit and Michelle Malkin share their thoughts and photos of the taxpayer revolt Tea Parties around the U.S. at Pajamas TV here. The clip includes some excellent commentary by Macho Sauce YouTube sensation, AlonZo Rachel.

I did not realize before that Pajamas TV has a free level of access, so you can sample their wares, and the basic subscription of only $5 per month! ALSO, I love it that there are buttons underneath longer clips that let you click to particular segments so you are not forced to watch the whole clip for the part that interests you most. THAT. IS. AWESOME.

P.S.

To help Suzanne and Monique along in the careers of their childhood dreams, here’s some sage advice from Gypsy:

Spector saves secret ballot for workers in Senate squeaker today — says he's squishy on the principle, though, and next time his vote goes to the side that 'makes me an offer I can't refuse'

“Card check” is name of a proposed law that would take the secret ballot away from the employees of an organization who are voting whether to unionize. Instead, the employees would vote publicly, or union representatives — the most dainty, petite, soft-spoken and compassionate ones, no doubt — would be sent around to beat up persuade laggards to sign their cards in favor of unionizing. I’m not even going to pretend I think workers would have more than just the one choice.

Did I miss a meeting? I know I’m brand new as a fiscal conservative, but I really thought the secret ballot was one of the few things that almost everyone in the U.S. supported. When did the secret ballot pass from being the cornerstone of our democratic republic to being anathema to our future because it stops labor union thugs from forcing people to join labor unions? DIS-EMPOWERING THUGS IS WHAT THE SECRET BALLOT IS SUPPOSED TO DO!!!

The whole concept of taking away the right to the secret ballot is a complete and utter outrage. It’s not possible to denounce it enough.

The secret ballot is what helps even the odds between bullies and the rest of us.

Why on earth do I feel I have to explain this to ANYONE?

The squeaker in the Senate was Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R, PA) announcement on the Senate floor this afternoon that he would vote against the Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check, which would take away the right to a secret ballot in votes on whether workers in a company should unionize. His was the swing vote.

Stacy McCain reports that Dave Weigel broke the story on Arlen’s vote today on Twitter. Michelle Malkin points out how Spector said he is open to taking away the secret ballot in the future. She also gives a link to the full text of Spector’s speech.

Memeorandum has the round-up here.

The Bloggess: So funny you must PFNFNDHTIN

The Bloggess is so funny that I am coining a new Internet acronym for her to warn my friends before they read her blog:

Pee First, No Food, No Drinks, Have Tissues and Inhaler Nearby. That’s PFNFNDHITN. Or better yet, PF-NF-ND-HITN. Yeah, divide it by task — that’s easier. This acronym is for the pinnacle of humor achievement — the ability consistently to write posts so funny that you put your readers in danger of incontinence, choking, collapsed lungs, asthma attacks and tears and snot running down their faces.

I understand this is an extremely comprehensive admonition. But it is necessary, judging from what happens to Cuban Diva BFF and me when I read The Bloggess aloud to her over the phone while she follows along on her laptop. There’s also the testimony of a number of The Bloggess’s commenters over time who have written to say that they were laughing so hard and having such conniptions of hilarity over her writing that family members or colleagues rushed to their aid.

If you are brave and have strictly observed the dicta of PF-NF-ND-HITN, the link to The Bloggess’s home page is here. Dive in.

Or, I also have a guided tour:

If you CANNOT STAND the Obamas’ fist-bump routine, click here and here (for the latter, also if you like kittens).
The Bloggess includes a speculation on something cool Obama could do here.
Get to know her here, with her posts tagged, “I pronounce it ‘Pwerto Rrrreeeko.’ “

Oh, and it took me awhile to figure this out, but always scan the comments, too. While The Bloggess has remarked that she has found her tribe and they bewilder the something out of her, they are a hoot, too. Birds of a feather, I guess.

Black Panthers' bomb almost killed my father and me 39 years ago today

My father and I came within five-to-10 minutes of being killed by a Black Panthers’ bomb that detonated in the car of the bombers just after they crossed Tollgate Road at Route 1 in Bel Air, Maryland. The bombers were on their way out of town because their intended target, the Bel Air Courthouse, where Edwin and John Wilkes Booth performed Shakespeare, was surrounded by police all night before the trial of H. Rap Brown.

I have to go out for a few hours now, but here are some links to get started:

Time Magazine’s account of the bombing, plus a blast a couple of weeks earlier now connected to Bill Ayers

An effort is now underway to connect Bill Ayers to a bombing that killed a police officer in San Francisco.

Remember that Obama started his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, co-founders of the domestic terrorist group, the Weathermen, murderers freed on technicalities when they were brought to trial.

Is Obama's mandatory 'voluntary' public service corps the slippery slope to the Weathermen's vision of re-education death camps?

I came upon this story at I Saw the Right, which may have gotten the illustration above from Six Meat Buffet. Protein Wisdom picked it up from Weasel Zippers, which got it from World Net Daily News, as quoted below.

The idea in my headline that Obama’s mandatory “volunteer” corps is a slippery slope to the re-education death camps envisioned in the 1960’s by Obama’s best friends and neighbors, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, is mine. I raise this concern due to the following video, which I first saw during the fall 2008 presidential campaign:

World Net Daily reported on 3/19/09:

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed.

The legislation also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.”

The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes “new programs and studies” and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 “volunteers,” is the beginning of what President Obama called his “National Civilian Security Force” in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

The service required by this bill is somehow both “voluntary” and “mandatory” while magically not violating the Thirteenth Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Ann Coulter pointed out Obama’s failure to grasp fundamental concepts of the U.S. Constitution, including the Thirteenth Amendment, here.

I really think the “re-education” and “death camp” aspects of this legislation are the worst possible results. However, the best possible result ALSO is an outrage. After taxing our incomes and charitable donations so much that we almost certainly will not have enough money to keep our favorite non-profits, charities and arts organizations alive, Obama ALSO WANTS TO TAX OUR TIME so that whatever spare time we might have frittered away according to our own lights now will be employed as Obama sees fit.

How is that not slavery?

Jonah Goldberg called it Liberal Fascism, but I call it totalitarian liberalism. It is time to start calling for Obama to resign.

Update, 3/26/09: Today The Anchoress has trenchant remarks and a round-up on Obama’s oxymoronic “mandatory” voluntary service legislation. Isn’t it just like Obama to TAX TIME ITSELF?

Update, 3/27/09: In addition to being a TAX ON TIME ITSELF, Michelle Malkin points out in her syndicated column on 3/25/09 that “the volunteerism packages on the Hill are less about promoting effective charity than about creating make-work, permanent bureaucracies, and left-wing slush funds.” On 3/26 she noted the Senate version of the bill passed 79-19.