THREE CHEERS FOR SENATOR JUDD GREGG

With the Democrats geared up to steal the census it seems like a good time to remind people of President Obama's original nominee for Commerce -- a man who would have been privy to facts and the inner workings of the effort.

The "Party" people on the Left side of the aisle did a meltdown when Oby actually tried to make a "non patrician" gesture nominating then Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican. To toe the line the President suddenly proclaimed that if Gregg did take the position, he wouldn't have anything to do with the Census. Nice way to CYA he thought but then Gregg told him to stuff the appointment where the sun doesn't shine.

Well that show of backbone wasn't the only time for the Senator from what use to be a Conservative, Republican state before Dems bused voters in from Mass and Vermont to steal it.

His demands that the TARP laws be followed and no 'pay back' monies disappear into a Democratic slush fund make for an interesting meeting in DC this week.

“No! No! No!” he yelled out to Peter Orszag. “You can’t make that type of statement with any legitimacy. You cannot make that statement.”

“This is the law,” he said. “Let me tell you what the law says. Let me read to you again because you don’t appear to understand the law. The law is very clear. The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt. It’s not for a piggy bank because you’re concerned about lending to small businesses and you want to get a political event when you go out and make a speech in Nashua, N.H.”

MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR MEN WITH SOTOMAYOR

For the past 40 years the Hell-bent march by the "New Feminists" to dominate and control everything (forget the 60's and the good intentions of the ERA), has had more and more male judges and politicians kissing their own butt in hopes of just not "upsetting" the women in their lives. Sotomayor is cut from the exact same Feminist cloth with her infamous "know better" diatribe that she publicly proclaimed on seven occasions. (Don't forget the "wink-wink" of other comments.)

I found it disappointing that none of the panelists had the courage to confront that aspect of her beliefs. All one needed to do was reference how -- in many states -- male attorneys won't even represent a man in a divorce case because they know they can not win. She might also have been asked what her thoughts are about child support orders that have been handed down (by female judges) in which men have been required to pay up to 160% per cent of their GROSS income, for as little as one child (that they never get to see).

A final issue that could have been addressed: Why is it in a country where the fastest-growing demographic in violent crime is coming from females, yet our legal system still tends to under charge females or give them a 'slap on the wrist' as punishment for any crime. The national (female) media was all aflame recently over a minimal sentence for a male accused in the sexual assault of a minor (the case was unprovable), yet in reality the fact that he was going to jail at all is more than the majority of females are handed when they commit the same kind of assault. (Think school teachers and "house arrest" here.)

Bottom line to the Feminists' domination of men today is men gave up all their rights and certainly their self worth and pride a long time ago. Men did it to themselves.

Too bad the male Senators didn't try turning the Titanic this week. Even a little course correction would have been impressive.