Consider the one thing we do know about God: His ability to create something from nothing. When man creates something, he does so - working from the outside with previously existing materials - leaving the seams to show. When God creates, He creates from the inside and leaves no seams.

‘Nothing’ is the raw material with which God begins. Natural law dictates that in order for any two things to interact in some way, a common element must be active in both. Therefore, ‘nothing’ must be one of the properties of God.

The idea of ‘conspiracy’ relating to U.S. governance was first raised by Hillary Clinton when she spoke out about ‘a vast right-wing conspiracy’ in her 1998 defense of her husband during the Lewinsky scandal. The comment was swiftly stricken from media parlance as no evidence of conspiracy could be substantiated. Nevertheless, for Mrs. Clinton to have raised the point, ‘corruption’ must have been part and parcel of her own M. O. The issue has remained dormant until now.

With Democrats in firm control of the executive branch, both houses as well as the MSM, there are some now beginning to raise questions as to how this could have happened. As the shoe now appears to be on the other foot, one might expect that it would be Republicans who would raise the issue. But Republicans, still regarding the whole notion of ‘conspiracy’ as political poison, have been keeping their powder dry. Instead, one is beginning to see bloggers questioning the integrity of the system that determines our candidates for leadership.

The pointer on the Ouiji board invariably spells out M-E-D-I-A when pertinent questions regarding this are asked. When we then examine the result and identify the winners, there can be little doubt that a conspiracy now exists between the media and Democrats. Whether or not members of the media fully appreciate that the Democrat party is no longer the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy or (even) of Clinton still hangs in the balance.

As President Obama spins his magic to transform the nation into something it has never been, we can only wonder if the media (like so many Americans) were merely duped or if these products of madrasah-like indoctrination at our universities now consider themselves to be hard-core Stalinists working with the Democrats to permanently disfigure the soul of our nation. If the latter be the case, they will surely have failed to consider that seams invariably tear, producing either chaos or some oppressive form of Statism – or both.

In other words... Let's hope and pray that they throw some thing that sticks!

Buy FORD (NO! Not Fix Or Repair Daily!) I mean FORD!

Text of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's statement Thursday that he received the list of AIG bonus recipients.

I have received the list of AIG FP employees who received retention payouts. Mr. Liddy testified in Congress yesterday that he intended to comply with our subpoena and expressed concern for employee safety. Mr. Liddy has in fact now complied with the subpoena. We are aware of the security concerns of AIG employees, and we will be sensitive to those issues by doing a risk assessment before releasing any individual's name. The Attorney General's Office is a law enforcement agency and is experienced in making these assessments.

As we perform our review, we will simultaneously be working with AIG over the next few days to determine which employees received payments and which chose to return the money they received.

The Attorney General's Office will responsibly balance the public's right to know how their tax dollars are spent with individual security, privacy rights, and corporate prerogative.

At this moment, with emotions running high, it is important that we proceed diligently, with care, reflection, and sober judgment. We thank AIG for their compliance.

This is even more worrisome than it is disgusting, and on many levels.

Isn't taxing income after it was paid a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws? Whether or not it is distateful and/or immoral, did the people at AIG who took the bonuses (which were clearly guarented in the contracts and further, known to the people in Treasury, so far as I know) actually break any laws?

I think all this phony populism on the part of the Democrats is likely just more bread and circuses-- unless they can find an in-the-back-pocket judge who doesn't give a fig about Constitutional protections, this'll likely get thrown out of court. Seriously, how can they create a special, particularly punishing (and very likely unconstitutional) confiscatory tax which affects only the AIG recipients of these bonuses? Are they going to apply this rule across the board for all bonuses paid from federal tax dollars?

That being said, if AIG sold an 80% share to the federal gov't, seems to me they shouldn't be surprised when they see the Big Nanny at the door. If Congress came to me with a big smile and a hand out ready to shake and be friends, assuring me in placating tones they only wanted to help, I would run the other direction.

Madame LaFarge ? I liken her to Madame Defarge ..... knitting a registry of the names of her victims.

AIG is mostly solvent. Some creative bankruptcy bill drafting could save most of it. (The Constitution gives the Federal government this power quite specifically.)

The issue appears to be that AIG was preserved in toto as a conduit for funds to entities, including foreign entities, that the people packaging the Credit Default Swaps had probably wronged by laundering them in AIG's "AAA" rating.

The other issue is that there might have been a real, concerted effort to keep former CEO and Chairman Hank Greenberg from re-acquiring the company when the firm first got into trouble.

I got IT-- I've got it!!

While we are dreaming up new government entities and posts, I suggest we need a Joint House Committee Caner... yep, The Office Of Public Caning or OOPC for short smack /*{ ouch }*\

When a member gets so many oopsies against them or just keeps getting out of line for any number of reasons (or just needs to be updated), The Official Caner is at the job and it is broadcast via C-Span. Tie it in with the Stimulus, create a bureau, remodel a room, and start taking resumes and doing interviews. NOW!

And Hurry!! We gotta do something! I want OOPC! I WANT OOPC!

Sorry to sound a sour note here, but I blame AIG, not the government. When the government becomes a major shareholder, darned right they have some say over director compensation. Now, whether the government should have acquired a major stake in the first place, that's a different question. But when the government is a shareholder, it stops being socialism, and starts being a regular function of the Board (executive compensation issues) except that you have some very strange rangers on said Board.

My ex-wife of long ago, the mother of my kids, had a home childcare business, a very successful one (so successful it led to the break-up: I was tripping over ankle-biters going into the kitchen to get my breakfast in the morning.) But, one thing she did I admired: the feds approached her and said they'd give the kids free lunches in return for some oversight on the nutritional standards of the food she served. She suggested that they go micturate up a long segment of tightly-braided hemp. She charged more than her competitors because she bought the groceries herself; she still did very well despite the higher prices. What kind of fool would accept $150B from anyone, government or otherwise, and not expect to have their every move scrutinized? Any small business owner knows this much. That's why we started our own businesses in the first place, to get away from that stuff.

True, many innocents are being punished at AIG and elsewhere, but it is not the proper role of government to ensure fairness. It reminds me of that Andrew Jackson quote from the Thaddeus McCotter post ("Put AIG Out of Our Misery"): "You (the banks) tell me that if I permit you to fail, it will ruin 10,000 families. And it may do that, but that will be your sin. If I do not permit you to fail, it will ruin 50,000 families, and that will be my sin." Or, one of my own favorite sayings: "If the government is going to be paternalistic, at the very least they could be good parents."