Obama, yesterday, picked Berkeley Lab Director Steve Chu for Energy Secretary, who told the Wall Street Journal in September:

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

Chu said he favors gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to nudge [read: extort]consumers into buying cars that are more fuel efficient and homes that are closer to work.

Chu spoke with the WSJ in September but the newspaper didn't publish the tax comments until last week, shortly after he was identified as Obama's nominee for Energy secretary.

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122904040307499791.html

Is this the "change we can believe in" that Obama was talking about.

How does this insanely radical nutjob's proposal not mean a tax increase for the Middle class?

Is this a tax break?

...why, yes!

...guaranteed to break one off in your @$$

This coupled with Obama's saying:

"The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington."

"The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force [force?] their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry [read: brainwash with global warming nonsense]. That requires them [the ignorant masses] understanding what is at stake, and climate change [we need to stop the climate from changing,i.e.,contol the universe's thermostat from a secret bunker in Al Gore's basement, I suppose] is a great example."

"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal...under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas...you name it...whatever the plants were [note past tense],whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations."

From the donkey's [read: @$$'s mouth]:

1.Higher gasoline prices & taxes

2. Skyrocketing electricity rates ["necessarily"]

Change you can believe in?

...absolutely.

Aren't we going to be so-o-o much better off now that we have a good president like Barack Hussein Obama?

...I can't wait...

...can you say...Vaseline?

The reason GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH [who was being investigated in relation to the Rezko case] was arrested on these charges, and at this time, relating to the Senate appointment, was because to indict him on a REZKO CONSPIRACY charge would have been to implicate BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA [since Obama's conspiring with the already convicted Rezko, is well-documented & is no different than the Governor's].

This is the U.S. Justice Department's chance to get the target of their REZKO INVESTIGATION without being forced to go after an equally guilty BARACK OBAMA.

The only problem for them now, is how to get around the fact that the "OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT" F'-ed up and contacted the GOVERNOR'S OFFICE about the SENATE SEAT, and it leaked about RAHM EMANUEL'S dealings [on behalf of Obama] being caught in the wiretap.

Now the MSM pundits are, once again, being trotted out to dissemble and parse the situation in defense of the “OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT” (P-p-p-p-l-l-l-l-e-e-ease!) by brushing off its communications as being “perfectly within the expected parameters of what any President-elect would communicate to his state’s Governor…I mean, this is an important Senate seat,” explained one such Democrat dissembler on Chris Matthews’ yesterday morning bu!!$h!t session. Ignoring the fact that WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT ALL THE TIME!!

The problem is that the “ORIFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT” s first reaction to the queries of the Press about whether they had done, JUST THAT, LIED ABOUT IT!! [A fact, now, conveniently being ignored by the Press]

Thus, all the attempts to remove the GOVERNOR by coercion or court order.

            None of the disgrace of our country by corrupt and self-serving politicians, being given positions of power, and the keys to the kingdom, by an illiterate electorate, should come as a shock to anyone.  That the American people would elect a man, Barack Hussein Obama, so devoid of qualifications, experience in moral judgment, or scruples, or even the vetting that such a position as President of the United States of America, is ludicrous and suggests the moral bankruptcy of  a nation, identified by those who espouse, just that;  "political correctness." 

It is not at all surprising to find that with the expansion of “political correctness” as our nation’s principal value, and the moral and ethical relativism that is necessary to legitimize it, we have become a nation of individuals divorced from the traditional values which once, by virtue of their unifying nature, allowed us the benefit of shared aims. Moreover, an important by-product of this national cohesion was that it engendered in its citizenry the familial instinct that made us willing, for duty’s sake, to place even our lives on the line in defense of this nation for the common cause of our system of government and a belief in its institutions.  Thankfully, there remains today, as is attested to by the dedication of the men and women serving in our nation’s all-volunteer military, a remnant of those whose values have not yet become tainted by the insidious atheistic nature of the socialist “Progressive” agenda, which is increasingly being forced upon us.

Ever since the Vietnam conflict and its questionable politics, which did not seem to justify our reasons for having gone there, there seems to have developed, as a result, a movement by some in our society whose proclivity is to reject the whole idea of America, and American values, as the moral and ethical leader of the world’s governments. Because of the mistaken approach our politicians took with regard to that conflict, in what actually was a Cold War skirmish between the Soviet Union and the United States of America and a rather awkward attempt to abort the further spread of the Soviet Communists’ influence in that part of the world, those of every cynical, hedonistic, and subversive stripe became emboldened by the seeming dent in America’s moral armor.

And so, we have, all too willingly it appears, consigned ourselves and our nation over to an inclusion of the subversive elements in society; after having drugged and sexed ourselves into a state in which we have come to concede that we have no moral authority at all, after all. 

As a result of having given credence to the lie of moral relativism and political correctness, which allow for on-demand abortion of innocent lives and which holds that marriage between two men is as morally acceptable as life-sustaining marriage between a man and a woman, we are fast becoming a culture of death. All-too-eager to reject anything that hints at a Judeo-Christian ethic, we have become a society rushing headlong towards our own annihilation.

It is no wonder to me, then, that under the emblem of “political correctness” we have become a nation with no set of cohesive moral values and one so divided into our own little “special-interests” groups that we cannot find it in our collective will to mount any effective defense against an enemy that suffers from no such confusion in the unity of his convictions.

The use of “harsh interrogation practices” such as prolonged standing or “water-boarding”, when employed by those entrusted with protecting us and our children from the Islamic fascist, throat-cutters, who plot daily on how to kill as many of us “infidels” as they can, and who address the “rights” of  homosexuals by executing them, causes cries for new Congressional investigations.  American liberals and the “politically correct” are quick to condemn our military service. Many of these “moral” Americans are appalled that our government has employed such tactics and lay claim to a sense of moral outrage that Americans should resort to such inhumane tortures. Virtually all of these same Americans are silent or stumble over their tongues in making excuses for the savage Islamic maniacs when they perform, for the entire world to see, their barbaric beheadings and suicide bombings of innocent men, women, and children. The same Americans who advocate for new laws against “hate speech” on the radio stations, line up to see the Hitler caricature president of Iran spew hatred for all things American or Israeli while they are preparing the “red carpet” treatment for him at one of our nation’s most “prestigious” Ivy League universities; applauding as he and his collaborators continue to wage their jihadist war of religious intolerance against the very freedoms they claim to hold so dear.

One thing, however, is certain; this nation is in the throes of a moral and ethical dilemma. We will remain ill-prepared to defend ourselves from the enemy without, until we learn how to purge the demons within. Societal cohesion is rooted in shared moral and ethical values and is the best defense we can ever have. Shared values are what once made this country so steadfast as a beacon of hope and prosperity.  We were once proud to be called the United States of America. We as a nation would do well to reattach ourselves to the anchor of our great traditions. The Judeo-Christian ethic, however unpopular in today’s society, is a life-sustaining ethic. I fear that a society that embraces an ethic of “abortion rights”, “homosexual marriages”, “moral relativism”, and "political correctness" is embracing an ethic of societal annihilation.

Even the liberal bloggers at “Talk Left Politics: The Politics of Crime are troubled by Barack Hussein Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder for the Cabinet post of U.S. Attorney General.

In an article titled, “Critiquing Holder for Attorney General by Jeralyn E. Merritt who, among her credentials, lists the fact that she is “a criminal defense attorney in Denver representing persons accused of serious federal and state offenses. She served as one of the principal trial lawyers for Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing Case”, posted on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST.

“As for who should be Attorney General, I hope it is not Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano or any high-level official of the Obama campaign. One cannot serve two masters. The Attorney General must represent the people and when he or she is too close to the President, we get into trouble. Think, Alberto Gonzales or John Mitchell.

As Eric Holder himself said in 2006:

"The attorney general is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest," said Eric Holder, who was a deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration. "The attorney general serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be closeness at the same time there needs to be distance."

There isn't enough distance between Obama and Holder to foster an independent Justice Department.” http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/29/14339/392  [end quote]

What appears obvious here, is that Obama is trying to appoint an Attorney General who can be counted on to give him legal cover from any investigations of him, or will be in the unique position to head off any legal actions that may be taken against him in the future concerning citizenship issues, ties to Islamic and foreign contributors of illegal funds to his campaign, or access to personal records or information concerning his associations [deals] with Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, or any other scandalous connections. [Taking a lesson from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s shenanigans and subsequent legal woes in dealing with subpoenas while in the White House.]

A blog author calling herself: looseheadprop, and describing herself in her biography as:

“… a former federal prosecutor who also served at other levels of government, both in civil and criminal law, including as Counsel to an Inspector General. These days, I'm a soccer mom and a partner in a small law practice with a buddy of mine from the US Attorney's Office,” describes part of her reasons for objecting to the appointment of Eric Holder as US Attorney General, in this way:

“As you may recall, I expressed some dismay upon learning of the Eric Holder nomination for AG. Back in June of this year, Kirk Murphy had done a piece on Holder's involvement in negotiating a plea deal for  Chiquita that included no criminal consequences to the executives who made payments to terrorists. Teddy weighed in as well relaying problems with Holder's performance was he was a US Attorney. I pointed out that Holder spent over a year trying to get special treatment for Marc Rich.” [End quote]

http://firedoglake.com/author/74    

An AP article published: December 2, 2008 on Roanoke, Virginia’s NBC affiliate, WSLS 10 states:

“Holder, a confidant to Obama on legal issues, recently has been a leading voice in the chorus calling to close Guantanamo Bay, which he has described as an international embarrassment. Likewise, Obama has called it a “sad chapter in American history, “pledged to close the island prison and criticized the Bush administration for arguing that terrorism suspects aren’t covered by standards set by the Geneva Conventions.
    But in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Holder defended the Bush administration’s policies at Guantanamo.
    Asked whether terrorism suspects could be held forever, Holder responded: “It seems to me you can think of these people as combatants and we are in the middle of a war, “Holder said in a CNN interview in January 2002. “And it seems to me that you could probably say, looking at precedent, that you are going to detain these people until war is over, if that is ultimately what we wanted to do.”
    Just weeks later, Holder told CNN he didn’t believe al-Qaida suspects qualified as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
Holder said it was important to treat detainees humanely. But he said they “are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.” He also downplayed criticism that prisoners were being mistreated.
    “Those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al-Qaida members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated,” he said.
    Those were essentially the arguments of the Bush administration. Since then, those arguments have been criticized by human rights groups, leading Democrats, and Holder himself.
    “We must close our detention center in Guantanamo Bay, “Holder told the American Constitution Society this summer. “A great nation should not detain people, military or civilian, in dark places beyond the reach of law. Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment.
    “Holder added that he never thought he’d see the day where the “Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
    “Those comments are in line with Obama’s views. Holder did not return e-mail and telephone messages seeking comment about his earlier interviews.” [End quote]

http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/national/article/obama_ag_pick_defended_guantanamo_policy/22265/

Excerpt from By Bob Secter/Chicago Tribune staff reporter's 9:23 PM CST, December 12, 2008 online article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-obama13d ec13,0,3359611.story    [for link to entire article]

"Rahm Emanuel President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Tribune has learned…

Obama said Thursday he had never spoken to Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy and was "confident that no representatives" of his had engaged in any deal making over the seat with the governor or his team. He also pledged Thursday that in the "next few days" he would explain what contacts his staff may have had with the governor's office about the Senate vacancy.

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor's administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said."   {end of citation}

Ask yourself this question?

What conceivable motivation would Gov. Blagojevich have for resigning at this time? The answer is NONE.

A Chicago Democrat Machine politician[read:crook] as shrewd as Blagojevich [who, contrary to the message being pushed in the MSM, is not crazy].

Don't you think this man realizes that the only leverage he has, in all this, is to scare the be-Jesus out of whatever cronies he DOES have in Chicago and Springfield to intervene on his behalf in dealing with the Feds to reduce his eventual punishment?

The only real Ace he has, IS his governorship.

Does anyone really think Blagojevich, who tried to sell a Senator appointment, would give up a governorship for nothing?

Get real.

Blagojevich is STILL dealing, baby, and you'd better believe it!

Nobody would go to bat for him if he steps down voluntarily, but somebody, right now & this minute, is trying to put a "package" together for him that will make his fall much easier to take [to cover their own @$$].

This explains all these calls for resignation and looking to the IL Supreme Court to intercede.

BLAGO, baby, you stay just where you are!!

Make the rats sweat bullets and blood!!

...and get paid, baby, get paid.

94. On November 5, 2008 [the day, by the way, that it was previously reported that Obama MET with Blagojevich; now conveniently retracted], ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with JOHN HARRIS regarding what ROD BLAGOJEVICH could obtain for the Senate seat.

After discussing various federal governmental positions that ROD BLAGOJEVICH would trade the Senate seat for, ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked about “the private sector” and whether the President-elect could “put something together there. . . .Something big.”

Thereafter, HARRIS suggested that the President-elect could make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of a private foundation.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS that he should do “homework” on private foundations “right away.”

ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked whether he could get a high-ranking position at the Red Cross. HARRIS stated that “it’s got to be a group that is dependent on [the President-elect],” and that a President probably could not influence the Red Cross.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS to “look into all of those.”

The question that remains to be answered, however, is, what did Obama's gang agree to pay to buy this neophytes way into the ultimate political appointment, the Presidency of the United States.