Jim Gereghty at the Campaign Spot points out Obama’s flimsy New Math on tire pressure.  I agree with Jim in general, but I think there’s an easier way to make the point.  First, Obama’s connecting this with offshore oil drilling is ridiculous.  That’s like a doctor telling a man with a cold, if you lay down part of the day, you’d cough less and you won’t need so much cough syrup.  Okay, but why don’t I do both, would that be better?

In any event, Obama is claiming that properly inflating tires would have a significant impact on gas prices.  Let’s take Jim’s assumptions and see:

Assuming:

• The average commuter commutes 33 miles per day;
• The average car gets 24 mpg (unlikely, but okay);
• Improper tire pressure decreases efficiency by 2.5 mpg (average of 2-3 mpg);
• And 1 out of 3 commuters has improper tire pressure.

Take three random commuters: two travel 33 miles each at 24 mpg (1.375 gallons per day) and the other at 21.5 mpg (1.53 gallons).  The evil, unAmerican commuter is wasting .16 gallons per day.

To put into perspective, this means that uninflated tires increase domestic demand by .16 gallons for every 4.125 gallons.  (All three commuters with properly inflated tires would use (1.375 * 3 = ) 4.125 gallons.)   Put another way, this is an effect of less than 4% (.16 / 4.125).

Assuming you believe in the law of supply and demand, a 4% decrease in demand should correspond to at most a 4% decrease in price.  This ignores effects like stockpiling and the cost of the federal beauracracy needed to ensure compliance.  If the average price of gas is now roughly $4.00 per gallon, a 4% decrease would make it $3.84, saving $.16 per gallon.

To sum up, forcing every motorist to properly inflate their tires would save, at most, $.16 per gallon.

In contrast, the federal tax on gasoline is $.184 per gallon.  Wasn’t there a candidate who said that eliminating this tax was a “typical Washington gimmick” that wouldn’t amount to any real savings?

There are two conflicting views of reality fluttering through the Democratic Congress and both involve the effects of speculation.  On the one hand, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are absolutely convinced that speculators are driving up the price of oil.  On the other, Chuck Schumer is equally convinced that his open and public speculation about the financial health of a bank had no effect on its immediate collapse and takeover by the FDIC.  The terrible truth is that, like Democrats on most issues, they are both provably wrong.

When a market participant decides to buy (or sell) a futures contract on oil, they are betting that the future price will rise (or fall).  These “evil, manipulative speculators” are people who use oil or gas and need to manage their risk.  For example, if you run an airline, a large portion of your cost is the cost of fuel.  Unfortunately, there is no market for managing the risk of refined Jet-A fuel, so you have to rely on the proxy of crude oil.  For example, let’s say the price of oil on July 1, 2008 was $140 per barrel.  You believe the price will go up in a year, so you buy several contracts that will, theoretically let you buy oil in a year at today’s price.  If, on July 1, 2009, the price of oil is $200 per barrel, you have a piece of paper that allows you to buy a barrel for $140 and the other party makes up the difference.  If, on the other hand, the price goes down to $100 per barrel, you have to pay $140 (in reality, you pay $40 to the counterparty and no oil changes hands).

So, if your company uses a lot of oil, and you’re worried the price will go up, you would buy a lot of these contracts.  If the price does, indeed go up, you have the “profits” from the future contracts to offset the increased cost.  In other words, you enter into 10,000 of those contracts, your cost of jet-A goes up by $400,000, you can offset that cost by the $400,000 you receive from the futures contract.  As you (hopefully) can tell from my description, no where in the futures market is the price of oil manipulated.  People are speculating (that’s a Harvard word for guessing) about whether the price will go up or down, but no oil changes hands.

This is very similar to betting.  I can assure you from personal experience that betting on a team to win will in no way effect their chances of winning.  If Harry Reid were right about this, the favorite would win every sporting contest.  (And his home state of Nevada would lose a ton of legal and illegal revenue).  There is no economist that I’m aware of who has ever said that speculating has an impact on price.  Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, when the federal government banned commodity trading on onions the result was a disaster.  When market participants could not manage their risk, prices became more volatile, not less.  Learning from history, it seems, is not a part of the Democratic agenda.

Separately, Chuck Schumer (D-umbass) and senior senator from New York, decided he wanted to collapse a bank, apparently to prove he could do it, or more cynically, to advance the leftist anticorporate agenda.  His public letter questioning the solvency of Indymac led to two weeks of frantic withdrawals by depositors.  After the federal government needed to step in on Saturday and take over the bank, Schumer, surprising no one, tried to blame Bush.  after causing the bank collapse, Schumer charged that president Bush had “blamed the fire on the guy who called 911.”

This is how stupid or dishonest Chuck Schumer is.  Either he is so dumb that he doesn’t realize that openly questioning the solvency of a bank would cause its depositors to withdraw their money, or he is so dishonest, he believes that you are so stupid that he can get away with it.  When a sitting U.S. senator (frequently referred to as a failed lawyer) on the senate banking committee openly questions the solvency of a major bank, there are consequences.  People who either (1) still have faith in their goverment or (2) realize who monumentally stupid such a thing is to do; will rush to their bank and take out their money.  As Mr. Schumer appears immune to any real facts, he might want to re-watch “It’s a Wonderful Life,” as this was a major plot point.

Mr. Reid is the kind of idiot who thinks gamblers have an impact on the game.  Mr. Schumer is the kind of idiot who, when hiding with the Franks in the attic, sees nothing wrong with shouting “DO YOU THINK THE NAZIS CAN HEAR US?!?” in the middle of a ghestapho raid.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a patently unconstitutional ban on hand guns in Washington, D.C. In light of the Court’s recent stupidity involving child rape and habeas corpus for terrorists, this is a refreshing departure from idiocy.

It does, however, raise an interesting point: if you’re an 8-year old child in danger of being raped by your stepfather or killed by terrorists, your only hope is to arm yourself.

I have decided to keep track of the Obama Gaffe Machine in its ever-expanding work to test the mainstream media’s limits of denial. It has turned out to be a bit more ambitious than I first thought, so it is not yet done. Given the frenzy today, I thought it appropriate to launch a bit early.

Please feel free to comment or suggest new gaffes on the permanent Obama Gaffe page.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is fond of calling John McCain’s candidacy the “third term of George Bush.” John McCain lacks the flair necessary, but he would be far more justified in calling Barack Obama’s candidacy the second term of the Jimmy Carter failure. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of Jimmy Carter’s and Barack Obama’s idiotic policies, but I just don’t have the time or emotional capacity to re-live the horrors of the 1970’s. Without doubt, however, the most obvious similarity between the two is their naked willingness to meet with dictators, fascists and terrorists.

Although the Obama campaign is now retreating from the dangerously naive policy set forth by Obama himself, the fact remains that Obama is open to meeting with Iran, without precondition. Preconditions, of course, are those “barriers to diplomacy,” such as “Before we meet with you, you have to stop killing U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq,” or “Stop building your nuclear plants, or we won’t meet with you.” Obama now says that how would, of course, have “preparations” before meeting with a man who has called our ally a “rotting corpse” and promised its annihilation.

The term “preparation” is a wonderfully naive term. It makes it sound as if Obama has such a childish view of the world that he thinks McCain is criticizing him for not planning an itinerary. “Of course we’re going to have preparations. We’ve booked the flight, we have a suite of hotel rooms, and I even brought a pen and a notepad, so I can take dictation copious notes from my dear friend Mahmoud.”

In a speech on Sunday, however, Obama betrayed the depth of his naiveté.

(You should watch the video, as Obama’s “come on” demeanor speaks volumes of his attitude). Three things jumped out of his speech:

1. Negotiations brought down the Berlin wall. This is a fundamental misstatement of history. President Reagan’s unflinching anti-Communism, aggressive expansion of our military capabilities and his refusal to talk with Soviet hardliners like Chernenko lead to the internal and external reforms. And, not to be too dramatic, but Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall”, was not made over an ornate conference table in a quiet Swiss hotel. It was made in front of the damn wall to a cheering crowd of Germans.
2. “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.” This is absurd. During the Cold War, the USSR could annihilate the United States and its allies, and vice versa. This stalemate, known as mutually assured destruction, only works with rational people. The Soviets were horribly brutal, but they were not about to cause the extinction of mankind to prove a point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has never been successfully accused of being a rational person. While it is true that the Iranian military poses no serious threat to the United States military, the Enola Gay, similarly posed little or no threat to the Hiroshima police force. It was the nuclear device it carried that did all that damage. Obama’s idiotic assertion that these “tiny” countries “don’t pose a serious threat to us” begs the question, how many Israeli, European or U.S. cities would have to be sacrificed in nuclear holocausts before Obama realized that one man with a bomb is a serious threat to us?
3. “Iran spends 1/100th of what we spend on their military. If they ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they would’nt stand a chance.”I have to admit, this took me all of three minutes to debunk, most of which was spent looking for my calculator. According to publicly available data on the CIA website, Iran’s military expenditure in 2008 will be (2.5% of GDP) $21.3 billion (not sure if this includes their “peaceful nuclear program”). The U.S. military expenditure in 2008 (including fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployments on every continent) will be (4.05% of GDP) $561.3 billion. No matter how you cut it, Iran spends way more than 1/100th of what America spends on their military. In real dollars, Iran spends 1/25th of what the U.S. does on it’s military (four times what Obama implies). In terms of percentage of GDP, Iran spends more than half of what the U.S. spends. Per capita, Iran spends 1/6th what the United States spends. Anyway you look at the numbers 1/100th isn’t even close.

Obama has proven himself, again and again, to be naive on foreign policy (even suggesting we invade an ally and nuclear power, Pakistan). Although he seems to be backing off of his ridiculous policy now, who will be the voice of reason when, God forbid, President Obama’s ridiculous and dangerous ideas are not reigned in by an opposing nominee?

One of my coworkers here was surprised the other day when I mentioned I was in favor of a strong Democratic party. “You’re joking, right?” he said, impressed with my apparent deadpan. No, I’m not. While it’s true that I tend to vote Republican, and I support Republican principles of limited government, a strong military and I take pride in American values and history, I know that a strong Democratic party is necessary to keep the fat bloated idiots who represent us in check.

After six years of a Republican-controlled executive and six years of Republican-controlled legislature, the Republican party had become a disgusting reminder of the corruption of power. Look no further than yesterday’s interim election loss in the former stronghold of Mississippi. (A Democrat won the open seat by running on a limited government, socially conservative agenda.) Republicans have taken the American taxpayer for a ride, forgetting who it is that brought them to power. They have greedily stolen money from the public coffers in the hopes it would insure them against negative public opinion. Instead, it foments it.

Of course, had they had a true adversary, one who could stand on opposing principles and provide a legitimate challenge to their claimed authority, well, maybe the fall could have been prevented. In any event, two strong political parties provide Americans with what they really want, a government so tied up by political machinations it doesn’t have time or energy to screw with us.

Sadly, the Democratic party is as much a spoof of itself as the Hollywood liberal elitists it represents. Several commentators have noted in the past several days that the Democrats and the media are attempting to redefine “negative attacks” as any criticism of Obama (Abe Greenwald for example). And, as if to prove the point, the entire Democratic party has gone into a tizzy about President Bush’s comments today to the Knesset.

President Bush, without pointing to Obama or anyone else, noted that “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Obama was quick to object (too quick, if you ask me). But what is telling about Obama’s (and Nancy Pelosi’s and Joe “Foul Mouth” Biden’s) response is the complete lack of denial. Obama has campaigned, in part, on the promise to hold talks with Iran and others without precondition (Robert Malley, one of his advisors has even gotten a head start). Isn’t it fair for someone, anyone, to question the validity of such an approach? Didn’t Carter fail miserably as president and later, as Palestinian stooge? Why is it, exactly, that this is unfair and out of bounds?

Nancy Pelosi: the comments are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Okay, that’s your opinion, but do you deny that the Democratic party, (including you) have advocated direct talks with terrorist nations?

Rahm Emanuel: Notes that, “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge,” and whines that President Bush is not abiding by this time-honored tradition. Mr. Emanuel must have an exceedingly small capacity to recall recent events as the Democratic party seems to delight in attacking President Bush when he is overseas, even when he is visiting active war zones.

Joe Biden: Well, he’s nothing but a cranky bastard in need of a nap. There again, he blames Bush for an increase in terrorism, but doesn’t even attempt to defend the Democratic position of diplomacy at all costs.

Again, this speaks volumes of the weakness of the Democratic party. They are either unable, unwilling or unprincipled to such a degree that they cannot even bear to see a plank of their own presidential platform questioned by one of the least popular presidents in modern history. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

In October, 1974, Willie Horton and two other upstanding community leaders in Lawrence, Mass, robbed a 17-year old gas station attendant, stabbed the boy 19 times, and left him to bleed to death in a trash can. Horton was convicted of murder by a jury of his “peers” and sentenced to life in prison.

After being in prison for a little over 10 years, the governor of Massachusetts, believing that even prisoners deserve a vacation, allowed Mr. Horton out on a weekend furlough. Mr. Horton, never the one to let bleeding heart good deeds go unpunished, neglected to return from said furlough. He remained at large for almost a year until, in April, 1987, he robbed a couple in Maryland, stabbing (old habits die hard), pistol whipping, binding and gagging the man so that he could, not once, but twice, rape the woman in front of her boyfriend. In sentencing Horton for his crimes in Maryland, the judge refused to return Horton to Massachusetts saying, “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released,” by the liberal Mecca on the Bay.

All of this may have been a sad (pathetic, perhaps) footnote in the anals of liberal idiocy, except for the fact that the governor who furloughed Willie Horton, and allowed him to rape and brutalize the population at large, was Michael Dukakis, and Michael Dukakis ran for President in 1988.

During the Democratic primaries (sorry to let the cat out of the bag, but, yes, it was a democrat who came up with the idea of giving people with lifetime prison sentences a “break”), one of Dukakis’s opponents (none other than Al Gore) raised the issue during a debate, without naming Willie Horton. Notwithstanding the soft-on-crime liability (and the fact that Senator Gore had just recently invented the internet), the Democrats nominated Mr. Dukakis as their candidate for president against then Vice President George H. W. Bush.

Here is where the saga takes a turn that could only be explained by a firm understanding of race and the media in America. A Republican group ran an ad informing the public of Dukakis’s disgusting history with Mr. Horton. The ad, which named Horton, included a photo of him. He’s Black. This, of course, means that Republicans are racists.

Wait, what? Republicans didn’t hand pick Willie Horton. Out of all the furloughed prisoners, his story was the worst. Republicans didn’t make him Black. Republicans didn’t encourage Dukakis to only release violent Black criminals. Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with (i) Willie Horton being Black; (ii) Willie Horton killing, raping and brutalizing three people or (iii) Willie Horton being released from prison. This entire episode was hand crafted by Mike Dukakis, not some Republican attack machine. All that the Republican ad did was to tell the story. Is that racist?

So why, then, do Republicans not cry foul when some dim witted political operative (by the way Susan, “escapade” is not the proper term when describing the violent rape of a woman and the beating and stabbing of her boyfriend) blames the Republicans for “negative” ads like “Willie Horton?”

What, exactly, is racist about showing the face of Willie Horton, or even mentioning him by name? Visual aids are key to advertising (whether they are political or otherwise). Are Republicans required to forgo visual aids because Willie Horton is Black? What’s more, isn’t it more racist to assume that showing the photo is racist? The liberal’s objection is that, by showing Willie Horton, the ad plays on America’s fear of Black men. Come again? Who says America is afraid of all Black men? I’m not. I am, however, wary of anyone who has stabbed a 17-year old 19 times, pistol-whipped, stabbed, bound and gagged another man while he rapes (twice) that man’s girlfriend. I don’t care if he’s Black, White, red, orange, blue or green, I give the fucker a wide berth.

The point here is that Democrats are able, because Republicans are scared of being called racists (or greedy, or polluters, etc.), to reframe the issue from one of cause and effect of bad policies to one of politics-as-usual, Republican-attack-machine, negative campaigning. We can no longer allow them to do this. We have to take back the dialogue from the scare-mongers and race-baiters. Willie Horton was a clean ad on the failed liberal policies of Mike Dukakis.

With terms like “unAmerican”, “controversial” and “judgment” floating around willy nilly, I thought it might be helpful to provide a thorough outline of why this is such a problem for Senator Obama.

Taking the most recent denunciation of Reverend Wright’s recent comments, there are two ways to look at yesterday’s developments. The first is that Obama didn’t know of Reverend Wright’s controversial views, and is genuinely shocked hearing them now. The second is that Obama knew about Wright’s views but, given Wright’s refusal to keep them quiet, he is now doing the politically necessary thing and distancing himself from the man and the remarks.

The real problem for Obama is that either way you look at it, it undermines the three pillars of Obama’ candidacy: (1) judgment to lead (as opposed to experience); (2) post-partisanship (his argument that he’s not just a politician); and (3) post-racial unity.

Judgment
There are many types of judgment, and all of them matter when considering a candidate for president. Character judgment, the ability to size up a person, their intentions, their concerns and their world view, aides a president in negotiating with foreign leaders, selecting cabinet members and forecasting world events. Political judgment, the ability to choose a path that will be acceptable to a broad audience, is just as important domestically and when dealing with foreign populations (the hearts and minds argument).

• If you take the first view, that Obama didn’t know Reverend Wright’s true views, how could Obama know Wright for 20 years and not know his views? It is clear that Reverend Wright is not shy about his views and expresses them openly in front of a broad audience. Obama spent every Sunday with him for 20 years (except, coincidentally, those Sundays where Wright went off the rails). He was married by the man. Obama has called Wright his spiritual adviser. If Obama cannot discern the intentions and views of a man he has known closely for 20 years, how can we trust him to size up Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
• Secondly, and this speaks to both views, a little over a month ago, Obama chose to bring Reverend Wright closer, saying, “I can no more disown him than I can my own white grandmother.” Obviously, it is poor political judgment to bring someone so close, voluntarily calling them family, without ensuring that their penchant for controversial remarks are in the past.
• Separately, it shows poor character judgment that Obama trusted Wright to keep quiet. Mort Kondrake noted yesterday that it reminded him of how Jimmy Carter was shocked, shocked, that the Soviet Union would invade Afghanistan. A telling analogy.
• Finally, if you take the view that Obama knew about Wright’s comments, it obviously shows poor judgment that Obama chose to attend Wright’s church for 20 years.

Post Partisanship
This is one of the more amusing tales Obama tells. “No more politics as usual” is fast becoming politics as usual.

• If you take the view that Obama knew of Wright’s views and is now distancing himself for political expediency, obviously this undercuts his “I am not a crook politician” argument.
• Separately, though, if you say he knew of Wright’s views, you have to decide whether Obama agrees with Wright or not. Either way this bodes ill for Obama’s post partisanship facade. If Obama agrees with Wright’s controversial views, then Obama is clearly lying now for the sake of his political aspirations. If, however, Obama does not agree (as he says he does not), then why did he go to that church? The most obvious reason is that he needed to for his political ambitions in Chicago. Either way, Obama has shown he is willing to compromise his beliefs for political expediency (in other words, he’s a politician).
• Finally, if you take the view that Obama did not know about Wright’s true views, in addition to the judgment issues noted above, you have to question the drastically different approaches Obama took, separated by only a month. In March, Obama made a long-winded speech about race, effectively excusing Wright’s sound bites and asking for the benefit of the doubt. Over the following weeks (as the thrill up Chris Matthews leg waned) Obama would slide down the slippery slope to later say he would have left the church had Wright not retired. Now, in April, he is offended and angry at Wright for essentially repeating what Obama told us Wright never said in the first place. In any case, Obama is doing what politicians do: when the high road doesn’t work, take the next available off ramp to the low road.

Post Racial Unity
Obama has claimed the mantle of post-racial unity. He has said he can lead us out of the era of racial animosity.

• Firstly, someone who attends the church of a man who claims the U.S. government is responsible for AIDS as an attempt at genocide is not going to lead us out of anything.
• Secondly, Obama’s speech in Philadelphia, making the reaction to Wright’s comments about race, was evidence that Obama doesn’t understand either culture. If Obama truly believes that all Blacks think “God Damn America” is an appropriate sermon, based on the overwhelming Black reaction to Wright, Obama doesn’t understand the broader Black community. (See also, the recent dust up when Obama called for restraint in New York City and was smacked around by another Reverend (Al Sharpton)). Separately, if Obama believes that his grandmother is a “typical white person”, he doesn’t understand “white culture” either.
• If Obama cannot stop a man he has know for 20 years from torpedoing Obama’s presidential campaign, how can he possible unite a country that, on one extreme, still believes that Al Gore won in 2000, and on the other extreme, still believes that Global Warming is a myth (I’m firmly in that camp)?

Answering questions today at a press club breakfast, Jeremiah Wright was asked about his “chicken’s coming home to roost” comment. The fact that his response was not met with derisive laughter is telling of the media’s abdication of its charge: “Have you heard the whole sermon? No? The whole sermon?” he responded. When the reporter shook her head, he said, “That nullifies that question.”

I beg your pardon? No, it’s still a valid question. You don’t need to read Origin of Species to have questions on evolution. (Or, to reinforce Goodwin’s law, you don’t need to read Mein Kampf to raise an objection to the Final Solution.) Reverend Wright made a comment (he claims he got the idea from former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck) that some find objectionable. The fact that they have not taken the time to listen to all thirty-five minutes of the sermon does not mean we cannot ask questions.

The argument goes that we haven’t heard the whole sermon, only the 2 minute sound bite, therefore, we should not judge Reverend Wright based on that alone. Fair enough, so I have heard the entire “chickens coming home to roost” sermon. I have to tell you, that didn’t change my view of how offensive it was. The fact that Reverend Wright spoke at length about how America brought 9/11 on itself does not excuse the more provocative sound bite. It is that idea that is offensive. Is Bill Moyers and the rest of the media that blind? Can they not see that the idea that America deserved to be attacked is, in itself offensive? Do they think we are offended on behalf of poultry farmers?

Of course, Reverend Wright has grown accustomed to not having to answer difficult questions. I spent an hour this weekend watching Bill Moyer’s perform a nasal colonoscopy on Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I don’t watch Bill Moyers regularly, but I find it hard to imagine how someone can call themselves a journalist without ever asking a serious question. You have one of the most controversial people in America on your program and you don’t ask a single question clarifying his viewpoint?

For those unwilling to stomach the entire sermon, Reverend Wright equates the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Edomites to the fall of the Twin Towers and the pentagon (money and military). The sermon revolves around Psalm 137 and how the first 6 verses show reverence for Jerusalem, but then the Psalm goes on to ask revenge on the Edomites. Reverend Wright is arguing against American retribution for the attacks of 9/11. He clearly feels that America will go too far in seeking revenge against those who perpetrated the attacks. Violence begets violence.

Midway through the sermon, Reverend Wright switches tracks and calls out a “faith footnote.” It is in this footnote that Wright draws the moral equivalence between America’s past transgressions and 9/11. (He later goes on, at the 30:00 mark, to argue that money appropriated for rebuilding New York should be used for free healthcare, education, the poor and AIDS research.) This is exactly what we thought you said. This is not different and no less despicable than Jerry Falwell’s comments that 9/11 was brought on by moral decay. In the minds of many Americans, this is what is controversial. It is not that we assume you are unAmerican, it is that we know, from your words, that you blame America for 9/11. That, alone, is enough.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ranged) is fond of quoting her own personal bible to underscore her belief in high gas prices, government mandated largesse and greener and greener policies, no matter the cost. In particular, Pelosi is fond of saying, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’” The problem, of course, is that this verse appears nowhere in any known translation of the Holy Bible.

Speaker Pelosi has acknowledged that the verse is not easily found, as it appears only in her own apocryphal copy of the Bible, given to her personally by God (here taking multiple Earthly forms, including AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Internet pioneer Al Gore). Among the lost Pelosi passages of the Holy Bible are:

• “Woe betide the man who, having money, giveth not to thine most progressive party.”
• The Greenest Commandment: “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is Global Warming. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy wallet, and with all thy tax revenue, and with all thy Hollywood special effects: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt tax thy neighbor unlike thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
• “And on the recess of the 10th Day, God cast out the evil spirits of the kingdom of Beegoil, the Chloroflorenes, the Carbonites, the Antiozonites and the Essyouveans. And God saw that the world contained no commerce, and it was good.”
• “Blessed are the elected officials, for thine is the kingdom of taxation and spendation.”
• “And He sayeth unto the congregation of nonbelievers, ‘I am doing a great work and I cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you and drinketh your Royal Crown and eateth thine waffles?’”
• “And God said unto Moses, ‘Let not my people’s carbonite footprint exceed that of thine cattle. For to do so would cause me to warmeth the Earth.”