Obama's secret plan to balance the budget

Those of us on the right have criticized the president for his using of the current financial situation to further his socialist ideology.

Sure, this whole mess began falling apart after the Democrats took over Congress back in 2006.

And the seeds were planted by Dodd, Frank, Clinton and the other Democrats when they pressured banks to make risky loans.

And George Soros is enjoying the crisis.

And, of course, the president is spending your and my money like a drunken sailor.

And no way to pay for it. Except raising our taxes.

Or so those of us on the right thought.

Turns out, though, that it seems that Obama has a large source of income for the treasury.

"What is it?" you ask.

Simple. He's going to have all his cabinet pay their taxes. We ought to be able to bail out all his cronies, pay for everything he's proposing, and still have a budget surplus.

Turns out Obama is a genius after all, huh?

All the lies that fit, they print

When the New York Times report first hit the Web last night -- you know, the story about Senator John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman -- I wasn't sure what to think.

My gut feeling was that the New York Times was being the New York Times. And I don't mean that in a good way.

I think the New York Times is not the credible news source many think they are. Yes, they have a long history and reputation. But they've shown themselves ... in may eyes anyway ... to be nothing more than a liberal propaganda machine, and not a bastion of journalistic integrity.

And, despite my feeling that Senator McCain isn't as conservative as I would like, I do respect him and have thrown my support behind the Senator. Not that my support means a hill of beans, but still, just so you know that I am, by default, likely to believe him over a liberal newspaper.

Now, I have never seen or heard anything that would indicate the allegations and implications in the story are true. But I have known folks that surprised me by finding out they couldn't keep their pants zipped.

Anyway, my gut told me that there was nothing to it.

And now, one of Bill Clinton's buddies says there's nothing to it.

Yeah, I know. Here I am using a buddy of Bill Clinton as a reliable source.

It's a crazy world.

Anyway, Lanny Davis, former special counsel to the 42nd President, knows a little something about the facts of the story:

What was omitted from both the Times and the Post stories was that what I wanted Sen. McCain to do, he refused to do. And he did so out of a concern of appearances of impropriety. That is a fact.

Davis says that the New York Times never contacted him, although the Washington Post did.

I repeated that fact to a Washington Post reporter several weeks ago. I never heard from The New York Times, even though, as just stated, I was on the record in 2000 with the Post. Yet neither newspaper, for whatever reason, included that fact in either story.

Davis isn't a fan of Senator McCain. He says he won't be voting for him. But he says he's not happy with the selective reporting of the paper.

The FCC investigated the matter and found no violation by Sen. McCain. That fact was also omitted from both the Times and the Post story today.

One question some folks have asked concerns the timing of the story.

Some wonder why the Times endorsed Senator McCain in the GOP primary if they thought there was anything to the story.

I'm wondering if they're running it now in case the junior Senator from New York ends up winning the Democratic nomination -- like I think she will.

I mean, think about it. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, liberal papers and news outlets won't be able to raise questions about inappropriate relationships (even if they're lies like this story is), will they?