Daschle provides more tax fraud on the Obama Cabinet

Ready for more hope and change? Tom Daschle, Obama’s choice for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has apparently forgotten to pay $128,000 in taxes. Just another honest mistake, right? After all, this is the smoothest transition in the history of the nation, right? Right!

I don’t know how anyone can claim with a straight face that Obama is ushering in a new era of government. We now have on his Cabinet two tax cheaters, one of whom will laughably be in charge of the IRS, and an Attorney General that has no problem getting pardons for terrorists. Senate Republicans would do well to take a cue from House Republicans and let the Democrats confirm Daschle without them. In addition, we have massive and unsustainable spending programs that are disguised as a stimulus bill that really isn’t aimed at stimulating anything, and instead will merely advance liberal agendas at the expense of the taxpayer, all being played out by an adoring media in front of millions of voters who applaud dumbly without a clue as to what’s going on and what consequences will be reaped.

Though I wish he didn’t, Gerald Warner has it right. This will all end in tears.

Democrats petition against Limbaugh in Fairness Doctrine preview

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has started an online petition against Rush Limbaugh to chastise him for comments he made last week about hoping for Obama’s failure. His words, as usual, were taken out of context – at the time, he was making the point that if it was Obama’s goal to institute socialist policies, then he would want those policies, and by extension Obama, fail. Not out of hateful spite, but out of political principle.

This is not a fringe group making this attempt – this is an official Congressional operation of the Democratic party seeking to publicly chastise a public figure and private citizen who disagrees with them. It echoes Obama’s exhortations to Republicans to not listen to Rush Limbaugh and join up in bipartisan awesomeness, and it echoes the official letter Senate Democrats sent to Clear Channel denouncing him for “phony soldier” remarks, again taken out of context. It matches Obama himself calling out Sean Hannity by name several times on the campaign trail, which has made its way into the opening montage for the conservative talk show host.

The point here is you have Democratic party leaders verbally castigating and organizing campaigns against pundits that disagree with them. Other pundits should be the ones denouncing and criticizing the hosts, not the politicians themselves, and certainly not in an official capacity. It gives another dimension to the debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would seek to offer equal time to political viewpoints on talk radio as it did in the past.

The problem with such a doctrine is in who decides what is equal and what is political speech. Are you going to have a committee listen to every hour of talk radio to ensure compliance? And who decides what speech belongs to which political category? And more importantly, why is the standard only levied at talk radio, a medium dominated by conservatives? Sen. Charles Schumer recently mused that the government monitors pornography, so why not talk radio? The equation of conservative political discourse to pornography by a sitting Senator is nothing short of shameful.

The truth is that the Fairness Doctrine is less about fairness and more about power. The left dislikes that talk radio garners such a wide audience, and despite the disparaging of its content as lying propaganda and of its listeners as ignorant and backward, its listeners are generally more aware of political matters than non-listeners. It seems to me that the opposition to talk radio is that it simply provides, on the whole, a conservative point of view, one that apparently cannot be tolerated to flourish for fear of threatening the power of the left.

What is intriguing is that despite the imagined threat of talk radio, Democrats were still able to win the House, Senate, and Presidency. Talking heads rubbed their hands with glee when John McCain won the GOP nomination against the protestations of prominent talk hosts. I think those talk hosts won some vindication when the moderate McCain lost the election, giving some credence to the notion that he wasn’t the ideal Republican candidate after all. So talk radio doesn’t necessarily threaten the electoral ambitions of Democrats, it merely provides a point of view that people can either choose to listen to or ignore.

We were told over the last eight years how patriotic dissent was, except, apparently, when the nation is under Democratic leadership. With all the media slobbering over our new President, it is now, just as it was before, important to have reasonable voices of opposition be heard. Political speech is one of the most important factors in a functioning democracy, and the government ought not to be in the business of monitoring and regulating it. It’s worth noting that many fair-minded liberals oppose such efforts as well. It bothers me when political parties make official efforts, like the petition against Limbaugh, to push an agenda of marginalizing the hosts and their views. Don’t like Limbaugh, Hannity, and others? Don’t listen, or call in to respectfully dispute their arguments, or refute them elsewhere. Don’t pass laws restricting the expression of their views, and don’t attack them in an official manner. If this nation goes down the road of regulating talk radio and political speech, the result may be advantageous to the left, but it will be the political integrity of the country that will suffer.

Update: On a much more humorous note, IMAO has a different theory for the reason behind the petition.

Update: Michelle Malkin takes a look at Rush Derangement Syndrome.

Stimulus package passes the House, 244-188

The massive stimulus package has just passed the vote in the House of Representatives. It’s extremely interesting to note that not one Republican voted for the bill, and 11 Democrats joined them in what is already being decried as a party line vote. Not that simple, no way. The nay voters did the right thing, as this mammoth $819 billion spending program is not going to result in any immediate benefit to the economy and result in more government debt. It’s on to the Senate, now.  The loss was forseeable, but I’m heartened that House Republicans were willing to oppose it as one, and in that respect, yes, it was a good day for conservatism. However, I do think that should this bill pass, as it seems destined to do, that this country will eventually regret it.

Egyptian TV cleric gleeful over Holocaust footage

In a shocking video highlighted by Patterico from an original Hot Air post, a Muslim cleric on Egyptian TV goes on a ten-minute screed on the history of  “oppression by Jews” culminating in Holocaust footage in which he gleefully revels in their humiliation. At one point, he says, referring to a weeping concentration camp prisoner, “Look at the humiliation on his face, praise Allah.”

This visceral hatred has no basis in rationality, and it strikes me how similar to Nazism this sentiment is. The beliefs of this cleric are unfortunately not too uncommon in the Arab world, as the fact this hate-monger is able to have a TV show indicates. It’s another reason why simply reaching out to the Muslim world, as Obama is attempting to do, will not by itself have an impact, not when the fires of such reckless hate threaten to burn all hope of reason from the conflict in the Middle East.

Challenger remembered 23 years later

Twenty-three years ago today, on January 28, 1986, the the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded less than two minutes after launch, killing all seven crew members. Andrea Shea King shares her own experience with the tragedy, and the Anchoress remembers too.

As a space enthusiast since I was a boy, I’ve always had a soft spot for America’s space program. It’s heartwrenching to watch the coverage as the event unfolds, and it’s moving to watch President Reagan’s speech to the country afterwards. We are painfully reminded of the lives lost in the Apollo fire, and of the sadness at the loss of Columbia and her crew. All these brave heroes gave their lives in pursuit of expanding the horizons of mankind, and it’s worth a minute or two to reflect on their sacrifice as they, as Reagan put it, “slipped the surly bonds of Earth … to touch the face of God.”

Obama gives his first formal interview to Al-Arabiya

Last night, President Barack Obama gave his first formal interview as President to the Arabic news network Al-Arabiya. The choice of the network doesn’t bother me that much, as President Bush gave several interviews to that network. However, to give your first interview as President to a foreign news organization does seem a bit odd to me.

Much of the interview focused on the Israel-Palestine issue, which will be addressed shortly by new US envoy George Mitchell, whom Obama directed to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.” And Obama was quite willing to talk about his Muslim background, which was decried as taboo and off-limits during the campaign. I don’t think that the subject should have been avoided as it was, and there was never anything wrong in bringing it up, especially if Obama is going to try to use his heritage to his advantage in Middle East relations.

Extending a hand to the Muslim is indeed important, and it is worth saying, as Obama did, that the U.S. is not the enemy of the Arab world. However, his recollection of good relations  with the Arab world 20 or 30 years ago seems a bit naive to me. And the interviewer’s assertion that the Iraq war caused most of the Arab alienation, which Obama did not dispute, is, as the Anchoress points out, not supported by history.

Relations with the Arab nations weren’t that great 20 or 30 years ago. Obama seems to forget the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, the Beirut Marine barracks bombing in 1983, the 1988 bombing of  Pan Am Flight 103, and so on. And the interviewer fails to acknowledge the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 attack against the USS Cole, and so on. The Iraq war and the Bush administration may have contributed to the hatred, but it existed long before Bush took office and before March 20, 2003.

In a way, it is illustrative of Obama’s thoughts on the war on terror. Al-Qaeda is not an isolated enemy, and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah have state sponsorship from Iran and strong support among many in the Arab public. Waging the battle against terrorism is unfortunately going to take more than assuring reasonable-minded Arabs that we don’t hate them.

Chia Obama

No, it’s not a joke. Wanna see your President’s likeness sprout greenery (in determined and happy poses)?

Yes, you can.

As an aside, who buys Chia Pets in general? Who finds them tactful gifts and wonderful adornments for the home? I’m serious, because I would probably rather send off for Sea Monkeys than see see shrubbery shoot up around a ceramic likeness of my current favorite shape. Just saying.

Heads up to Mookie on MM’s site for the info.

San Fran Nan: Contraception will stimulate the economy

With staggeringly bizarre logic, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went on with George Stephanopoulus to defend her inclusion of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars toward family planning services. Her reasoning :

PELOSI: Well, the family-planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those—one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

But that’s not even the whole of it. Let’s look at what she continued to say in that same response:

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. What the economists have told us from right to left: There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.

Let’s take on the federal stimulus funds for contraception. I’m not against contraception at all, but I don’t think taxpayer money supporting it is necessarily a good idea. However, the economic argument made in favor of it here is just plain retarded. At best, you could somehow reason that decreased pregnancies and subsequent births would, eventually a few years down the road, lead to less children to siphon off tax dollars from social spending programs. But to think that this would have any sort of immediate economic impact, as this bill is supposedly designed to provide, is ridiculous.

And even that argument is blown out of the water when you consider Pelosi’s next statement that more social spending is better than tax cuts, so there go those potential savings from contraception, eh, Nancy? Plus, I’d really like to see the economic data supporting the notion that “investing” in food stamps and unemployment is more financially helpful to the entire nation than tax cuts. And just as a note, you don’t “invest” in food stamps, you give them away to needy families and individuals. Education and employment training are investments toward a future payoff; unemployment dollars are not.

Let’s call this for what it is: an attempt to fulfull an ideological agenda by cloaking it in fears of the moment. Our tax dollars are more likely to be wasted on idiotic initiatives like this than to actually help the economy. My faith in this so-called stimulus bill is dropping by the day, as is my already subterranean respect for this Congress.

Update: President Obama has personally appealed that the family planning funds be dropped from the stimulus bill. It was an absolutely dumb addition, and I say good for him, though I’m still not sold on the entire package. Obama, it seems, is trying to reach out to Congressional Republicans to draw on some bipartisan support. A few days and a far cry from the “I won” rhetoric designed to cow Republican opposition. I guess bipartisanship really is needed after all, eh?

Of course, this might leave Pelosi with some egg on her face as the new President slaps her down in favor of the opposition. Is this going to sit well with the more experienced Congressional leadership? We’ll see.

Washington Post: Obama already has terrorists rankled

Patterico has a thought-worthy take on the Washington Post article suggesting Obama has gotten under terrorists’ skins. Maybe someday, but in his short time in office, I sort of doubt that right now, especially considering his press secretary seems loathe to even use the phrase “war on terror.” I guess when you have to write puff pieces on a daily basis, sooner or later you’re going to have to stretch.

Kirsten Gillibrand the right choice for NY Senate

On Friday, New York Gov. David Paterson announced his pick for Hillary Clinton’s now-vacant Senate seat: conservative Dem Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. She is considered one of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats who believe in fiscal conservatism, and the article notes she has a 100% rating from the NRA. She also voted against the recent bailout and believes in tough border enforcement. (Heads up from IMAO on the links.)

Some downstate liberals are moaning about the appointment and vowing to run against her in 2010. I guess when you’re in a state so dominated by Democrats, internecine fighting is inevitable. Personally, I think Gov. Paterson did a good job with this pick, and credit is due him. Gillibrand is a much better choice than previous favorite Caroline Kennedy, a candidate whose views the left were more comfortable with but whose qualifications seemed to mainly consist of her dad being JFK. She abruptly withdrew from contention, and I’m sure the polling data showing most New Yorkers were opposed to her appointment had more than a little to do with it.

I’m sure there will be times she’ll take positions I disagree with, both out of her own principles and in the interests of following her party. Overall, though, she seems like a competent and reasonable woman to be joining the ranks of the Senate, and it might be worth noting that Republicans would be more likely to work with Democrats cut from her cloth than with the more liberal establishment that has taken over leadership in the Democrat party.

Certified

For those who are inclined to care, today I passed my ASCP Board of Registry exam to officially become a Medical Technologist in Microbiology.

If you’re not sure what that means, just know that I tell you what bug is making you sick, and how to kill it.

Worrisome executive moves in first days of the Obama presidency

I’m OK with the future lobbying ban and salary freeze for White House staff, but there were other actions the fledgling Obama Administration has already taken that worry me.

First, and heads-up from The Anchoress on this, we have the little discussed reversal of the so-called “Mexico City Policy,” enacted by Ronald Reagan, upheld by Bush Sr., reversed by Clinton, reinstated by G.W. Bush, and now reversed by Obama. The policy bans federal funds (i.e. taxpayer funds) from going to organizations operating abroad that potentially could provide abortions. Whether you think abortion is fine or not (I don’t), taxpayer money doesn’t need to support it, and it’s worth noting that the “belt tightening” promised evidently won’t affect foreign abortion providers. Those who think politicians don’t really have a sway on abortion practices may be only half right – they apparently do in other countries.

The other is the Executive Order, signed today to much fanfare, closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and mandating a review of interrogation techniques. The facility won’t close for another year, but this gets the ball rolling as the administration tries to figure out what to do with the 245 prisoners still there. As others have noted, Jack Murtha has idiotically declared that his district would love to have a maximum security prison housing them. After Murtha called his constituents “racist” and “redneck,” he was promptly reelected to office, and I wonder if a lot of those who voted for him are already reexamining that decision.

Closing Guantanamo seems to me more a capitulation to the hard left than a real defense of America’s ideals. Conditions there, from what I have read and seen, were not substantially different than any American maximum-security prison, and Patterico notes that the issue really isn’t ideals versus expediency, it’s ideals versus national security. The other fact to note, as Michelle Malkin has, is that the Pentagon announced 61 terrorists released from Guantanamo are believed to have resumed fighting. The numbers are 18 confirmed and 43 suspected, but even 18 is too many. These aren’t Boy Scouts and busted pot smokers we’re dealing with here, these are folks who have no qualms killing American servicemen and civilians. The conspiracist will say the Pentagon made up these numbers, I presume because they love torture and incarcerating terrorists so much they’d do anything to keep it up. If you were to make that argument, I would say come back later and talk to me with an adult response.

The “harsh interrogation” techniques are mandated to simply be brought in line with the Army Field Manual, which may incidentally be itself revised to be more aggressive, so there goes that. The Guantanamo moves, along with Obama’s urging today that Israel open its borders with Gaza, don’t represent to me a continued operation from a position of strength against terrorism, and it doesn’t represent to me a resumption of moral authority, as some have claimed. I personally feel we need a place like Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo to house enemy combatants, who do receive rights under the Geneva Convention, but not the Constitution, and we need to keep our options open when it comes to interrogation, not to be butchers and sadists like Hussein’s regime, but to be able to employ aggressive means of finding out information.

We still have the mammoth economic stimulus package to look forward to, which Dick Morris dissects, and which hopefully won’t enshrine socialism in our legislation. I’m not overly hopeful about that, but we’ll take a look at that later. With the moves today, Obama has indeed fulfilled some of his campaign promises to his base, but I’m still not left feeling any better.

Update: Yeah, one more note on the Guantanamo releases so far. Apparently, one has gone on to become the deputy of the Yemen branch of Al-Qaeda. Oh, and he’s suspected in bombing the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in September. Yup, no big deal. Apparently part of the base closing efforts are funding for rehabilitation programs for ex-detainees. I wonder if they have group talk therapy and show outdated filmstrips on the perils of being a jihadist at those rehabilitation programs. Just curious.

Update: Patterico comments on the reversal of the Mexico City Policy. And two more released Gitmo detainees brag about rejoining the fight.

Update: The Senate has voted to uphold the reversal of the Mexico City Policy.

Tax “mistakes” don’t stop Geithner clearing committee hurdle

Timothy Geithner made it through his Senate Financial Committee vote by a margin of 16-5. You surprisingly had Senators Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn praising his credentials and dismissing his failure to pay tens of thousands in taxes as a “mistake.”

Yeah, OK, great credentials. Accomplished very little as NY Fed chief and helped engineer the much-maligned bailouts. But even if you think that’s no big deal … how is a potential Treasury Secretary, in charge of the IRS and the purse strings of the U.S. Treasury, able to forget to pay taxes and not get dragged through the fire over it? At best, he’s an idiot at tax matters, and at worst, he’s a tax cheat. Either one disqualify him as the nation’s top financial chief, and top Republicans shouldn’t be going along with this debacle.

The inauguration of Obama – a brief reflection

Tomorrow will see the inauguration of America’s 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama.

Stepping back and taking off the partisan hat for a moment, I fully appreciate the historic nature of this event, the ascension of America’s first black President, made especially more poignant one day after the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King would have indeed been proud to see the day when a majority of Americans felt no compunction against voting for an African-American, and the vast majority of those who didn’t did so on policy and ideological grounds alone (despite what the other side would have you believe).

Obama has been hailed as the post-racial, post-partisan President – sadly, he is neither. Democrats in Congress seem loathe to pay even token respect the Republican minority and indeed are thinking of criminal prosecutions for outgoing administration officials. Dr. King admonished us to judge people not on the color of the skin, but on the content of their character. Regrettably, despite Obama’s election, race is still today used to classify and categorize what one’s lifestyle and political views should be, both positively and negatively.

No, I did not vote for Obama – and yet I still wish him well. I am an American first before any other partisan loyalty, and if the country thrives and prospers under his leadership, then so much the better. My concern is that his stated goals and plans won’t achieve that prosperity, both foreign and domestic – but we shall see what temperance the reality of the office brings him.

Those who voted against him must remember to avoid the trap into which so many rabid foes of the last President became embroiled. Bitterness, hatred, and blind animosity will only serve to undermine your own cause, and if you oppose him, do so on policy, reason, and logic. If and when he acts in a manner that you would support if he belonged to a different party, then give him that credit.

The inauguration has been overhyped and overbroadcast to the degree that even ESPN and QVC will be showing coverage of the event. A lot of people are turned off by the massive celebration, and many have their own thoughts. As for me, I simply pray for this great nation and I hope for its success, no matter who the Commander-in-Chief may be. We are a great nation, and I’m proud of her regardless of what party is in power, and no matter who’s in office, I’m always thankful to have been blessed to have been born in this land of the free.

Update: Interesting opinion of the swooning in the Daily Mail.

UPDATE: The Anchoress has some good reaction and thoughts about the inauguration. And Michelle Malkin has more on the despicable display of adolescence directed at outgoing Pres. Bush, as well as some of the beautiful Inauguration Eve rhetoric. You won the election. Now please show some class.

Justice served as Ramos and Compean are freed

As far as I’m concerned, there’s no controversy with these pardons. President Bush did the right thing today and commuted the sentences of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. If you recall, Ramos and Compean were jailed for shooting a suspected drug smuggler in the buttocks, largely on that drug smuggler’s testimony, which he gave after smuggling in a second shipment of drugs, a fact which the prosecuting attorney tried to hide from the jury. These men were simply doing their jobs, and even if you consider them guilty, their decade-long prison sentences were ridiculously harsh. I am extremely glad Bush did this, and I was beginning to get a little worried that he wouldn’t do it before his term expired. This is a victory for justice, and hopefully these men can get back to living normal and happy lives.

You can read more reaction from Michelle Malkin, Patterico, and IMAO.