Fun Facts About the Economic "Stimulus" Bill

Some fun facts about the Obama/Pelosi economic "stimulus" package, titled American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (HR 1 2009/01/29).

After some ruthlessly thorough research (using the Search feature in Adobe Acrobat), I have come up with the following non-financial facts about this package.

(Oddly enough, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the word "reinvestment" appears only twice, both in reference to the title of the bill; "recovery" appears 1 time in relation to this package.)

Experts agree that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy. In this 680 page behemoth, there is not a single reference to:

• tax cut
• capital gains
• income tax
• business tax
• alternative minimum tax
• increased revenue

We are all told that this is a bill to stimulate job growth. Yet, the term "job growth" never appears in the bill.

• "job" appears only 17 times
• "job creation" appears only 4 times
• "jobs" appears only 8 times
• "job stimulus" appears 0 times

And how about the economic recovery?

• "economic recovery" appears 1 time (in a definition of what this bill would do)
• "economic stimulation" 0
• "economic stimulus" appears 3 times (2 referring to the Econimic Stumulus Act of 2008)

Yet "funds provided" appears 58 times.

• "funds appropriated" appears 26 times
• "funds received" by 9 times (not once where the feds are on the receiving end)

"Program" appears 327 times.

My Search feature must have malfunctioned after searching for all the ways that the bill hands out dough; my search for "pork" came up empty. Yet, I know that pork appears on just about all of the 680 pages.

So once again, I have to ask the question, where's the stimulus? Where's the recovery?

There's nothing in here but piggies!

Obama/Pelosi Stimulus Bill Gives Your Money to Illegals

As if anyone needs another reason to rally against the Obama/Pelosi "stimulus" package, it seems that a loophole will allow illegal immigrants to get some of the "tax" credits.

According to the AP:

The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

It seems that this provision would entitle green-card holders working in the U.S. to be eligible for a tax hand-out, but AP correctly continues (link added):

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

It is not bad enough that the bill would give income tax rebate checks to people who don't pay income tax, but now we find that people who are not legally in this country can get a hand-out, too.

House Republicans: THANK YOU

House Republicans finally stood their ground and acted like Republicans yesterday in voting against the Obama/Pelosi "stimulus" package.

In an embarrassment to Obama, the Republicans refused to rubber-stamp the bill, as Obama seemed to expect.

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Republicans actually had the gall to vote their beliefs and not kowtow to Obama in some bizarre show of bi-partisanship:

“People vote for what they believe in. Clearly, Republicans did not believe in [the bill's] agenda … I think they probably voted their conscience.”

Yet, somehow, voting one's conscience is not a good thing, at least according to Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, who charged that "...Republicans acted in a partisan and irresponsible manner.”

So, voting for a bill that is wholly "the president's agenda," is non-partisan, but voting for "what (you) believe in" against Obama is partisan and wrong. You figure it out.

I, for one, am glad they voted their conscience and against this pork-laden bill.

If only the Democrats on the Hill would do the same.

Obama: We Must Act Quickly to Fix the Economy!

Obama wants congress to act quickly to pass the "stimulus" bull -- I mean bill -- in order to get the economy back on track.

If I might steal a clip from WTKK-FM's Michael Graham, it seems that quick action is needed to keep Americans from finding out exactly what is in that bill:

Here's a roundup of all the info you need to understand just how badly you're about to get spanked:

• The Wall Street Journal gives an overview of the $900 billion price tag and the politics at work.
• Jim Manzi at National Review Online points out that President Obama's "Create Jobs" plan will spend more on elementary school education programs and HHS pork than on highway projects.
• James Pethokoukis at US News provides a litany of opinions by economists, including some in the Obama camp, who have previously argued that what Our Dear Leader is proposing today just won't work.
• And some good news that the message is getting out, despite ObamaPelosi rushing the bill through the House with virtually no debate:

When Obama used patriotic terms to defend the inclusion of $200 million to spruce up the National Mall in a closed meeting Tuesday with House Republicans, Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois told him he shouldn't "wrap yourself in the flag," according to Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pushed back Tuesday after Obama's two meetings with House and Senate Republicans. "You can make a very credible case … that reconditioning the National Mall will create jobs, probably through spending in small businesses," he said. However, late Tuesday, the $200 million appropriation for the Mall was dropped from the House bill, Politico reported.

A message to the House of Representatives: Act quickly before the money for that Frisbee golf course in Texas is yanked, too! The country cannot possibly recover without Frisbee golf!!

Obama: Just Trust Me; It Will All Work Out Fine

Everyone, just close your eyes, your ears, and especially, your mouth. Let the Obama magic flow over you.

The "stimulus" package will work.
It will all be OK. It will all be OK. It will all be OK.

Obama Wants Republican Cover; Not Cooperation

In his photo-op meeting with Republican House Leadership today, Obama is reported to be courting Republican support for his "stimulus" package.

The news media are gushing about how this "outreach" is "change," and is so refreshing that Obama wants a bi-partisan solution.

Wrong!

Obama doesn't need a single Republican vote to pass this package. So why is he begging for votes in an unprecedented meeting with the Repubs?

Obama doesn't want bi-partisan co-operation; he wants bi-partisan blame when this plan fails and when the American people find out what is really in there.

Sorry Obama; fraudulent tax "cuts" that aren't cuts, $4 billion in "community development funds" to ACORN, hundreds of billions on contraceptives. You take the credit for this disaster. Help yourself.

Did Pelosi Say Having Children Hurts the Economy??

In defending a $300 million payout for birth control and family planning services in the Democrats "stimulus" package, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggests that having children will costs the states and federal government:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

If not having children "will reduce costs," does that mean that having children will place an undue financial burden on the states?

Or, is she tacitly implying that the inclusion of these funds for "family planning" will only keep the poor folk from having kids.

Either way, it seems to be a grossly cynical view of the American family that having fewer kids is a consequence of the downturn in our economy.

Vatican Gets It Right About Obama

Agree or not with the Vatican's position on Obama overturning the ban on federal funding of foreign abortion clinics, "senior Vatican official" Archbishop Rino Fisichella summed up the first week of Obama's tenure as president very well.

Calling Obama arrogant, Fisichella said:

If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, with all due respect, it seems to me that the path towards disappointment will have been very short.

Amen. I couldn't have said it better.

Obama: Time To Put Aside Childish Things -- NOT!!

At his inauguration, way back on Tuesday, the new president promised that it is "the time has come to set aside childish things."

Apparently, he doesn't heed his own advice.

At a meeting on the "stimulus" package today, he announced his opposition to the Republican's concerns with a curt "I won."

The sources of the report do not indicate if Obama stuck his tongue out after saying that, or held his thumb to his nose and waggled his fingers accompanied by a hearty Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah.

House Minority Leader John Boehner reportedly responded with a sheepish I know you are, but what am I...

Thanks, Barack, for not being childish and not taking the oppositions opinions seriously.

Obama: Only Two Days to Make the US Less Safe

It took President Barack Obama a mere two days to make the United States less safe than we were on Tuesday.

With two executive orders, Obama approved the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and all such facilities throughout the world, despite the fact that he has no idea of what to do with the terrorists detained there. He then announced that the U.S. will no longer torture terrorist subjects.

The speculation is that some terrorists will be released to "countries that want them." If no other country wants them, do we get them by default?

Others will be tried in "modified military commissions." Whatever that is (we can say that quite often regarding Obama's plans).

The rest of the detainees, those who can't be released or tried, will face a "national security court," again yet to be defined.

A correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers unwittingly gave the most essential reason why these terrorists cannot be tried in a non-military court:

The detainees had access only to the unclassified evidence against them, and they had no way to challenge it. Military officials told them nothing of other evidence that might be responsible for their detention.

If these detainees are tried in a civilian court, they will have to be provided classified intelligence and military information, or they will walk. And, of course, the classified information will be revealed in court or otherwise leaked to the press. That will do untold damage to the war on terror.

Reports indicate that many Guantanamo detainees who have been released have indeed returned to the war against us.

AP reported today on an alleged statement from a Yemeni group known as "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," who claim "that group's No. 2 is a Saudi national who is a former Guantanamo detainee."

This, apparently, is nothing new.

The Washington Post reported in 2004 that one of the repatriated Guantanamo prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said.

Meanwhile, Obama announced to the press -- and our enemies throughout the world -- that the U.S. can only use interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. This inexplicable pronouncement tells our enemies that U.S. soldiers and intelligence officials cannot use any extreme methods of interrogation, even to elicit information that could save American lives. How many terrorist captured in the future will talk, knowing that their interviewers are limited in what they can do to them.

In two quick strokes of a pen, Obama has made it easier for terrorists to do their job: killing us; and he made it harder for the military to do their job: protecting us from the people who want to kill us.

Obama: Change that Could Kill Us.

What Will You Do: I Pledge To Not Take Advice From Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher

I pledge to be a great mother.

I pledge to be a great father.

So promise two celebrities in a video put out by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. The video is a four minute montage of celebrities of various fame announcing the actions they pledge to take, now that Obama's the president.

Apparently heeding Obama's myriad calls to service, these A-, B-, and C-list actors, athletes, and musicians prattle off a laundry list of things they promise to do, now that Obama's in office, in order to make this a better world -- things they probably should have been doing anyway.

Such as, being a "great mother" or "great father."

Does this mean that these two glitterati wouldn't try to be the best parent possible if McCain got elected? Are you serious? Looking into the eyes of your child is not enough to make you want to be a better parent, but looking into to Obama's eyes does?

More "inspiring" promises from the cast:

I pledge to consider myself an American, not an African-American. It's pretty sad that on Monday you would not call yourself an American.

I pledge to never give the finger to anyone when I am driving again. Yeah, that will help...

I pledge to be a better mentor to my sisters. Again, why haven't you been doing this all along?

I pledge to plant 500 trees this year. Yeah, I can see Eva Longoria out there with a shovel on her knees in the dirt, positioning a dutch elm.

To no longer use the plastic bags at the grocery store. Again, I hardly think any of these people spend much time at the Piggly-Wiggly.

I'll drink less bottled water! And more alcohol from a glass bottle?

However, in this four-minute Obama love-fest, I don't think I heard in there the ultimate pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

Oddly missing from the video.

If all of these commitments are so important and essential for us "so that we are on this planet forever," why did these people wait so long? Why did it take the election of Barack Obama for them to do the right thing.

If these things are so important, then why not work towards these goals when President Bush was in office? Because he didn't ask?

This nation is not about one man, one ruler. But don't tell these people that:

I pledge to be a servant to our president. Truly scary. No one should promise fealty to any elected official in this country.

Most fitting, though, is the following from one of the illuminati:
I pledge to find the humor in everything.

Well, this video is a good place to start -- 'cause its gotta be a joke.

UPDATED: Is Obama Already Working in the Dark?

At a little after noontime on Tuesday, during his inauguration speech, Obama promised that he and his administration would do our business in the light of day as the best way to restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

However, less than 12 hours later, the new president put into play his first policy, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay, in the dark of night.

Obama circulated a draft of the order after midnight this morning, apparently thinking the most important issues facing the United States are Club Gitmo and restricting the ability of intelligence official and others to interrogate terrorists.

Obama was so eager to appease the left-wingers by closing Gitmo, that his order will cloase the facility even though he has no plan for what to do with the terrorists stored there.

But the order, which one adviser said could be issued as early as Jan. 20, would start the process of deciding what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects.

Despite what one thinks about Guantanamo Bay, it seems to me that the prudent course would be to actually have a plan before enacting the plan.

Somehow, I am not comforted that our new president's first move in office, executed in the dead of night, will both appease the ACLU and help 245 Muslim terrorists get back to "work" killing innocents -- perhaps us.

Update: Also part of Obama's mission critical Day One activities, he might be ending the military tribunals for terrorists. I heard one report, uncorroborated, that the "mastermind" of the U.S.S. Cole bombing is among the terrorists who may not stand trial for his crimes. Thanks, Barack; the change we need, indeed...

Is Dick Cheney Riding a Sympathy Wheelchair to the Inauguration?

Clearly, outgoing VP Dick Cheney being in a wheelchair today at Obama's inauguration is a bald-faced attempt to garner cheap sympathy on the way out the door...

Let the jokes begin!

What? Did he shoot himself this time?
He was lifting a box of checks from Haliburton that he could not allow anyone else to carry...

I Do Not Want Barack Obama to Succeed

On the eve of Barack Obama's elevation to President, just a few thoughts I wanted to get out there for you to consider:

I Do Not Want Barack Obama to Succeed.


I said it and I mean it.

What I want is for the United States to succeed: I want to win the war on terror, or at least keep the terrorists from striking here or anywhere again; I want the country to pull out of the recession; I want the United States to continue being the market-based meritocracy it has been since day 1.

Everything that Obama championed as a candidate during this election runs contrary to those goals.

• Borrowing $1 trillion dollars from places unknown (and Communist China) to "stimulate" the economy by handing out one-time checks to people will place a burden on this nation that it may never recover from. President Bush tried that trick in the Spring of 2008; how well did that work out?
  This nation is already $1 trillion in debt; doubling that amount will help no one. It can only lead to higher unemployment and spiriling inflation.
  

• Obama wants to "spread the wealth" by increasing taxes on people he thinks make too much money, and on businesses that he thinks make too big a profit and don't operate in the industries he favors. Raising anyone's taxes during a recession will only make things worse. President Bush I and Clinton tried the tax-increase route in 1991 to 1993. The recession continued until the massive tax cuts pushed through by the Republican congress in 1995.
  Since when has making a profit been a negative in this country, anyway?
  
  
• His placing his entire recovery plans on pumping billions into road and bridge construction will not help the economy. Hoover tried that during the Great Depression to little result.
  
  
• Obama wants to restrict free-trade during a recession. Another Hooverian tactic that back-fired.
  
  
• Obama plans to change NAFTA, to the detriment of our allies in Canada in Mexico.
  
  
• But, he wants to freely negotiate with known terrorists and dictators who are our sworn enemies.
  
  
• He wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay without having any plan on what to do with the terrorists imprisoned there.
  
  
• He wants to decimate our military by slashing its budget, shutting down weapons programs, and preventing our soldiers from doing anything to our murderous enemies that might make them uncomfortable (read: water-boarding).
  Practices that have reportedly and historically worked to save American lives.
  
  
• He has made top priority ending the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy in the U.S. military that most within the military feel is working.
  And despite the relative merits or detriments to the program, making the pledge to end the policy on Day 1 (which he has), can only be to curry favor with the far-left extremists in the country. It is a policy that has not affected our military in the least, apparently, and is not in need of immediate action.
  
  
• He long advocated ending the war in Iraq immediately, with no apparent concern for what that meant to the U.S., to the war on terror, or to the Iraqi people. He now wants to end the war "responsibly" -- whatever that means.
  
  
• He wants to dismantle our nuclear weapons programs at a time when rouge nations throughout the world are building theirs up (Iran, North Korea, China, and others).
  
  
• He wants to shut down the missile defense systems during a time when our enemies are increasing their ability to strike us and our allies.
  
  
• He shows complete disdain for our intelligence community by hiring someone to run the CIA who has no intelligence experience and has shown his own disdain for the CIA.
  
  
• He wants to restrict how our intelligence operatives can interrogate suspects, making our enemies the victim and our intelligence officers the criminals.
  
  
• He wants to create the enigmatic civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military; so far he has refused to explain exactly what that is or what their job might be.
  

In short, Obama wants to turn this country into a European-style socialist state, lowering the standard of living for all U.S. citizens.

No, I don't want him to succeed. I want this country to succeed despite Obama.

And no, I will not give him a chance; I will not sit back and see what he will do.

There is little I can do to prevent what Obama might inflict on this country, but there is no way that I can in good conscience, support it.

And, sorry Liberals, this has nothing to do with his race.

Obamanauts: Why Don't YOU Give Him A Chance

As an avowed non-supporter of President-Elect Barack Obama, I have heard the manta repeatedly over the past few weeks that I need to Give Obama A Chance before criticizing him and his impending presidency.

I admit that I am cynical towards the Obama presidency, and doubt that the ideas he put forth during the campaign will help this country. But, I am told, I must give him a chance.

To that I reply, why don't you give Obama a chance to show what he can do before you deem him the greatest president ever. Why stop there? He will be the greatest elected official in the history of the world.

It is you who want to tear down Mount Rushmore and recast it in His image. It is you who are comparing Obama to Lincoln, Washington, Kennedy, et. al. before he has had the opportunity to do Thing One as president.

It is you who are calling, um, him the, um, greatest speaker, um, ever. If your over-estimation of his speaking ability is any predictor, we are in trouble indeed.

I am the one who wants to see what he can do; I am the one who looks at his past "record" of non-accomplishment and wonder about his ability to succeed.

You already have all the world's problems solved; it is you who believe that all the world will love the United States starting at 12:30pm on January 20. It is you who are telling the world that is it cool to fly the US flag again. Merely because Obama got elected.

It doesn’t matter if the state of Maryland is broke as long as Barack Obama is President of the United States – this is great! -- Lisa Gladden (D-MD)

Here is a guy who can claim no major accomplishment in his past. Here is a guy with a history of ducking the tough issues by voting "Present" countless times as an elected official. Here is a guy who has already backed-away from most, if not all, of his campaign promises.

It is truly a great moment for this country that an African-American has been elected to the highest elected position in the country. It lends further proof that America is not a racist country.

But, to all you Obamanauts, Obamamanica, Obamunists the world over: Before you deem him the Savior, why don't YOU give the man a chance to prove he is worthy of all this adulation and praise.

FBI Enganging in Racial Profiling

In a effort to stem potential problems at Tuesday's presidential inauguration, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are tracking the activities of white supremacist groups.

Despite the fact that there has been "no known organized effort to express opposition" to Obama, law enforcement officials have been watching internet traffic, e-mail, and other methods of "chatter" to stem off any problems.

However, it seems to go unreported that these law enforcement officials are using questionable racial profile tactics to whittle down their lists of people to watch. Word is that all of the people on the white supremacist watch lists are white!

We know from human rights advocate, the ACLU, and other such concerns that racial profiling does not work. TSA officials, for example, cannot levy extra scrutiny on young Muslim men from Middle East countries, despite the fact that all of the terrorism against the United States has been perpetuated by young Muslim men from Middle East countries.

These advocates tell us that TSA cannot locate the terrorists by looking at people who are most likely to commit terror.

So, it must follow, that to find white supremacists, law enforcement should not be looking only at white people. It would be unethical and a violation of human rights to levy extra scrutiny on the people most likely to be white supremacists.

After all, while not all white people are supremacists; all of the white supremacists have been white.

Call your congressman and make sure that law enforcement does not violate the human rights of the white supremacists by looking at only white people in order to find them. White supremacists could be anyone, an African-American, a Mexican illegal immigrant, an elderly Asian woman in Chinatown.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of comfort by thinking that racially targeting white people will help the authorities in locating and stopping white supremacists from violence and mayhem.

Bush: Say What You Will, But He's a True Gentleman

Say what you will about President George W. Bush, and there is plenty to say on all sides of the issues.

But, the man is a true gentleman. Throughout the transition period from his administration to that of Barack Obama, Bush has held himself with the absolute dignity and grace that his position deserves.

In his farewell address last night, Bush was effluent with his praise and respect for his successor.

Bush called the inauguration of Obama, the first black president, a moment of hope and pride for America. I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.

It's a shame that Obama didn't show the class that his predecessor showed. The president-to-be wasn't around to listen to Bush's compliments. Obama decided that going to the posh Equinox Restaurant was more important than to listen to the president's farewell.

Equinox dinner menu (PDF)

To be sure, Obama had the text of the speech, as the news media did, but he should have waited the 13 minutes or so until the speech was done before ducking out. I think Equinox would have found room in the restaurant had the president-elect come late for his reservation.

The bottom line of the Bush presidency, the president summed-up in two sentences:

I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right.

This is why there are some of us who still like George W. Bush. We might not agree with his policies -- and frequently don't -- but he did what he thought was right. For better or worse, he ignored the polls and his favorability ratings when crafting policy decisions that often hurt his like-ability. Unlike his predecessor who seemed to poll-test and focus group his every move (including where he vacationed, according to some).

We can only hope that the incoming president shows the same belief in his principles and stands for what he believes the way that Bush did. Doing what is right is harder and shows far more leadership than doing what is popular and easy.

For that, I thank you, W.

God Does Not Equal Religion

For years now, atheists, the ACLU, and other agitators have been trying to strike every mention of God from anything even remotely related to the government.

They claim, among many other things, that having the phrase "In God We Trust" minted into a quarter is somehow infringing on their freedom of religion -- or freedom of anti-religion, as it were.

Now, we have professional agitator Michael Newdow -- clearly a man with nothing beneficial to do with his time -- trying to force his atheistic views on President-Elect Barack Obama.

Nedow, together with a handful of busy-bodies, including“UNNAMED CHILDREN;", does not want to allow Obama to conclude the presidential oath of office with "So Help Me God."

Newdow, apparently, feels that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asking the President-elect to say God in order to be confirmed is endorsing religion.

Oh sure, sayeth Mr. Newdow, if Obama wants to say the phrase on his own, that would be fine with him; Obama just cant' be required to as part of the oath. We all thank you for your generosity and tolerance, Michael.

I have heard arguments on both sides of this debate, but I have never heard anyone getting to the most basic flaw of the anti-God people.

Mr. Newdow et. al., God does not equal a religion. Stating "So help me God" does not promote a specific religion, or any religion. Were the president asked to pledge "upon the basic tenets of my Lutheran faith" or some other recitation that mentions an actual religion, Newdow might have an issue. But in real-life, Newdow has no claim.

Belief in God does not mean support for religion. One can believe in a Higher Power, but not in the power of a particular church. All religions believe in a god, or gods, but belief in God can come outside of a religious environment. Just ask me.

Further, with federal U.S. courts deciding that Atheism is a religion, isn't preventing a president from uttering the word "God" a tacit endorsement of their "religion"?

According to this CNN.com report, the tradition was started with George Washington, and that most presidents have used the phrase. If presidents have been promising to uphold the Constitution "so help me God" for more than 200 years without a national religion being magically established, its not going to happen this time, either.

If anyone is showing religious intolerance, it is Michael Nedow and his fellow busy-bodies. If he thinks that anybody's life is going to be affected one way or the next by Obama saying "God," then he is a sad and sorry fellow indeed.

Mr. Nadow, do us all a favor and find better ways to waste your own time; drop your lawsuit, because the courts in this country have better things to do than support your selfish, petty, pathetic ideas.

With Friends Like These

What's a guy to do when his "friends" let him down?

Joe Kennedy runs a program (Citizens Energy) that accepted free oil from Citgo -- a oil company owned by the Venezuelan government and its U.S.-hating "president" Hugo Chavez -- and sold that oil to lower income folks at a cheap price.

An altruistic idea, but it may have left Kennedy with no real friends.

Kennedy countered the argument that taking freebies from our "friends in Venezuala and Citgo" was a politically dangerous idea by stating that not taking oil from Chavez would be "a crime against humanity,"

An interesting choice of word regarding his dealings with a known dictator charged with multiple human rights violations by Amnesty International.

"Some say it's bad politics..." Kennedy laments, "some say it's wrong to take (Venezuelan oil)." At times, he seems to claim that going to the Citgo station and buying oil at retail price is the same as getting it for free, as his organization does. If they don't like the idea of using Venezuelan oil, people "should be waking to work" and "just not be using oil products."

Things have gotten worse now that Citgo has decided to suspend donations to the organization; Kennedy seems to have nowhere to turn for help.

Part of his problem with finding no replacement benefactor(s) could be the ease he has shown when taking free oil from a sworn enemy of his own country.

Kennedy defended his taking free oil from Chavez: "US oil companies refused to contribute to the program, even when they recorded booming profits in recent years."

How would Kennedy look had he been alive to take free Volkswagen cars from Hitler and distributing them? Or, taking free vodka from Stalin? Would Kennedy today brag about graft oil had it come from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Perhaps if Kennedy was more thoughtful of those from whom he was receiving charity, he may have developed an alternate plan, instead of leaving his program in the hands on someone like Hugo Chavez. "The decision remains in the hands of Citgo Petroleum and its parent company Petroleos de Venezuela," stated Citizens Energy in a press release.

Did Kennedy's single-minded acceptance of Chavez' oil prevent him from exploring other sources? Could it be that Kennedy's disdain for the "Big Oil" companies and the free-market system have anything to do with the private oil companies' reluctance to work with him?

In a column in the Huffington Post last summer, Kennedy insulted the oil companies by calling them bull-headed and smug and demeaned the companies for "lecturing the American people on the virtues of supply and demand" in dealing with high gas prices.

Kennedy further went on to demand that the U.S. government force companies to donate profits for "fuel assistance fund for the poor" and for the "development of alternative energy or investments to drill for new domestic pools of oil and gas."

"What is abundantly clear is Big Oil thinks first and foremost about its shareowners and top executives," he sneered. "The time to wait for Big Oil to voluntarily act on behalf of all its constituencies is over."

Not a way to make new "friends," Mr. Kennedy. If you don't donate oil out of virtue, we will force you to donate at the point of a gun instead. Not a persuasive argument, there.

Like they say, Joe, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And, with friends like these who cares whose enemies they are, right Joe?