No Gold Medal for U.S. Olympic Bid

The Olympics and the attendant corruption planned for Chicago will not take place unless President Obama declares war on the International Olympic Committee. The United States bid was rejected in the first round today.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that the billions of dollars that were to be "skimmed" by the Chicago political insiders, Friends of The Obama, are now off the table. Thus there are some very pissed off slum lords who will be looking for alternative sources of filthy lucre.

Watch your taxes.

Sarah Palin Resigning as Alaska Governor

Sarah Palin is resigning as of July 26 as governor of Alaska.

The question now becomes, is it because she's positioning for a presidential run, a U.S. Senate run, or is she tired of the political nonsense?

Sen. Inhofe Exposes Suppression of EPA Report

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is one of the few politicians whose performances argues against term limits. He's been doing a lot of heavy lifting the last couple of years on fighting the insane push to strip our freedoms away in the name of fighting "climate change" and "global warming."

His latest effort deserves our attention.

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

Apparently it's the EPA that can't handle the truth, as Jack Nicholson would sneer. The Obama EPA is hell-bent on carbon dioxide capping, regardless of the facts, because it is a political and tax mechanism designed for money and power.

Sen. Inhofe believes the Cap & Trade bill -- Cap'n Tax -- is Dead on Arrival in the U.S. Senate.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

It's odd that EPA talks about research when all Carlin did was review the facts that ongoing research has revealed. The science is being ignored so that policy can be advanced. That's the situation, simply put.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

[SNIP]

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."

"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ... That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."

So much for restoring science to its rightful place.

The Fight Against Cap & Tax Goes to the Senate

Once it was announced that the House would schedule a vote on the Waxman-Markey (Cap'n Tax) bill for Friday, we knew that the progressives thought they had the votes.

Congressional sources say that phone calls to individual representatives ran 10 to 1 against the legislation, officially known as the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009.

Unfortunately what the people think doesn't seem to count for much. It passed, 219 to 212.

I am pleased to report that 44 Democrats voted against the measure, including Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma's Second District. (We will be watching you on health care, Mr. Boren). No doubt a few of them waited until the could see the outcome before registering their vote, so as not to incur the wrath of the Pelosi.

I am displeased that eight Republicans voted for the measure, including the usually reliable Mary Bono of California. How many of these votes were the result of sincere belief in the cause of fighting global warming and how many were merely fear of liberal voters in their districts, it is unclear.

It would be easy to point the finger of blame at the eight GOP members, any four of whom could have reversed this outcome, but that would be letting the Democrat majority off the hook. Two hundred eleven (211) Democrats voted to tax our citizens and our industries by a trillion dollars, and to initiate new regulations that, if the Senate concurs, will change our lives as Americans, and all for an elusive 1/10th of a degree Celcius in 100 years.

Even if the Senate says no, and that is where the fight goes next, all 219 deserve the full oppobrium of the American people in the 2010 elections. There is no excuse for their combined arrogance and stupidity.

This political battle is not over. Not by a long shot.

The Congressional Meddling With GM Begins

That didn't take long.

In a letter to GM chief executive Fritz Henderson, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) criticized a proposal to shutter the Willow Run Transmission Plant in Ypsilanti Township, Mich. "As you well know, this plant was once known as the 'Arsenal of Democracy' for having built the famous B-24 bomber that helped the U.S. and its allies win the Second World War," Dingell wrote. "Its closure would have a catastrophic effect on the community in which it is located."

I'm actually sympathetic to Dingell's point of view, and maybe part of the place ought to be converted into a museum housing an actual B-24 bomber.

But the catastrophe goes a bit beyond this one plant.

It brings up an interesting situation. If Dingell saves the plant, it will show just how susceptible the new GM is to political interference.

Politicians Debate Championship B.S.

This is why I have no use for political parties.

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is leading a Senate subcommittee debate on legislation that would force Division 1-A universities to come up with a "fairer" system for determining a national championship in football.

The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.

[snip]

Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.

Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.

[snip]

The subcommittee's statement said Hatch would introduce legislation "to rectify this situation." No details were offered and Hatch's office declined to provide any.

Hatch said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."

Where does one begin?

First, the BCS system is a train wreck. Every year. So was its predecessor. So was the system before that. Every year at least one, if not more, teams get the shaft. That's football. That's life. Get over it.

Next, for the love of all that's true and righteous, doesn't the United States Senate have bigger fish to fry than collegiate football. The economy is in full meltdown, President Obama's trying to turn us into the U.S.S.A., Mexican drug gangs are spilling over the border, the North Koreans are threatening "war" and Algore has promised to unleash a new climate change book against us later this year. Don't we have enough freaking legitimate issues to deal with without wasting time on the "mythical" football championship?

We all have our points of view on college football, and if I worked for Sports Illustrated I could wax eloquently for weeks on the finer points of what would make for a more competitive and fair championship determination. But I don't and neither does Orrin Hatch or any of the other geniuses on Capitol Hill who have been there too long.

Since when did it become the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee competition and fair play anyway? I thought Uncle Sam was supposed to defend our borders, protect the integrity of our monetary system, maintain an independent and politics-neutral judicial system, and for the most part stay the hell out of everyone else's way.

Maybe I'm a little old fashioned. I expect people to follow the Constitution AND common sense. You see, that's the problem: our politicians in both parties are more interested in grandstanding on irrelevant issues that may play well back home than they are in taking courageous stands on tougher issues that can mean life or death for our economy or, more importantly, our liberty.

If Utah isn't national champion next year, this democratic republic will survive.

But if lawmakers fail to challenge the rush to socialism, the expenditure of trillions of dollars that we will have to print, and allow a small cabal of high level officials to nationalize firms "endangering" the economy, all in the name of equalizing competition and promoting fairness, there will be nothing of the democratic republic left, and no need for either Democrats or Republicans. At last the enemies of freedom, in the name of evolving standards of equality and justice, will have brought us together as We, the People who once were free.

I don't think we will lament the loss of political parties much when we realize that it was their silly gamesmanship that distracted us from the real issues.

A Big Black Hole One Way or Another

If the world didn't already have enough to worry about, BBC News (online) has this headline:

Race for 'God particle' heats up

Europe's particle physics lab, Cern, is losing ground rapidly in the race to discover the elusive Higgs boson, or "God particle", its US rival claims.

The particle, whose existence has been predicted by theoreticians, would help to explain why matter has mass.

Finding the Higgs is a major goal of Cern's Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

But the US Fermilab says the odds of its Tevatron accelerator detecting the famed particle first are now 50-50 at worst, and up to 96% at best.

Both machines hope to see evidence of the Higgs by colliding sub-atomic matter at very high speeds. If it exists, the Higgs should emerge from the debris.

Unless a small black hole is formed instead, which is the fear a very small minority of critics, a smaller few with actual science credentials.

Still, the fact that scientists are calling this the "God particle" is just inviting trouble, don'tcha think?

The U.S. lab is located near Chicago, itself sort of a black hole where political ethics are sucked in and disappear. So why not just add the rest of the planet and be done with it.

Lindsey Graham, Senator from Sweden?

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, aka Grahamnesty, has fully succumbed to Potomac Fever.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina, says that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agree with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.
...

“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”

Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” says Mr Graham.

Yah, suure ...

Since when did real Americans advocate any Swedish public policy?

And, senator, we are not just "a little bit pregnant." Another report says that 400 banks, including the Top 20 in the U.S., in 47 states have accepted federal "help." Which means federal strings. Like the new requirement that banks accepting federal money cannot raise their singular or collective voices against pending legislation like the "card check" that would empower labor unions by eliminating the secret ballot to determine whether employees unionize a particular firm.

But Lindsey Graham wants to be loved. He trots after John McCain like a faithful collie, and he can warp the space/time continuum to position himself in front of TV cameras and microphones. Pathetic.

The country pays the price.

'I'm Your Huckleberry'

MSNBC is reporting that Val Kilmer is considering a run for governor of New Mexico.

I say great, but only if he puts on his Doc Holiday duds.

Kilmer's a Democrat, of course, who reportedly donated $4,000 to the presidential campaign of Ralph Nader last year but says he voted for Obama in the general election.

Kilmer said if he ran it wouldn't have to be a conventional campaign.

That's what I'm counting on. Unconventional and entertaining.

And perhaps a good conservative would actually win. It's a long shot but anything is possible.

Very disappointed that MSNBC failed to list "Tombstone" among Kilmer's cinematic achievements. It is, by far, the best portrayal of the deadly Arizona dentist friend of Wyatt Earp. (But when does MSNBC ever fail to disappoint?)

Ethics: White House: 'Bar' Highest Ever?

As previously noted, Tom Daschle ceased his efforts to appointive office today in the uproar over tax problems. In other news, Nancy Killefer withdrew her name as potential White House "performance chief" after it became known that she, too, had ... tax problems! New Treasury Secretary Matthew Geithner was confirmed despite having had ... tax problems.

I complimented Pres. Obama for his "no lobbyist" rules. Since that post, he has had several known (and registered) lobbyists join his team with special waivers. The waivers clause wasn't discussed in his initial press conference but apparently it's pretty damn handy.

So today White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about all this stuff.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the tax problems faced by high-level nominees, and the exceptions made to the no-lobbyists pledge, President Barack Obama's spokesman is defending the administration's ethical standards.

Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, "The bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set."

No doubt. No doubt. But the key to a good ethics program, Mr. Gibbs, is not setting a high bar. It's knowing whether you're striving to go over it or under it. I'm not sure you guys know which side to be on.

And that's really the most important part.

Alternative explanation: Somewhere in the White House they have installed a wet bar on a pedestal that is higher than any previous wet bar. Perhaps this is what Gibbs meant.

Tom Daschle Throws in the Towel

Tom Daschle, former U.S. Senator and Obama pick to be head of Health & Human Services (HHS), has withdrawn his name from consideration to the cabinet post in the wake of the scandal over the $130,000+ in taxes he "mistakenly" didn't pay until the last few days when it was obviously going to be a problem.

Good for Daschle.

Not so good for President Obama who refused to do the right thing and withdraw the nomination on his own, isntead sticking up for Daschle even as the mega-lobbyist - who the White House said wasn't a lobbyist because he wasn't official registered as one -- bowed out.

President Obama stood by Daschle Monday, telling reporters that he "absolutely" supports the former South Dakota senator. But the president accepted Daschle's withdrawal with "sadness and regret" Tuesday morning, according to a White House statement.

He would've been even sadder with more regrets had Daschle not quit.

What Bipartisan Spirit?

Drudge echoes the London Telegraph with the headline "Bipartisan Spirit Crumbles?" while the British newspaper reports on President Obama's choice to pick a battle with Rush Limbaugh.

More on that in a moment.

Who declared that there was a bipartisan spirit abroad in the land? That's the real question. The evidence is to the contrary - notwithstanding the white flag of legislative surrender from all the RINOs in Congress. That surrender came months ago during the collapse of any pretense of the Bush Administration to a conservative governance.

The political conflict in the United States is rooted in philosophical and moral differences that represent entirely different world views. It is an ongoing battle by two opposing factions to the hearts and minds of a larger, third group. One group cherishes the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and recognizes them for the God-given rights and responsibilities that they are. They believe that freedom comes from God and cannot be abrogated by any government or group. The other group believes that rights are relative, that freedoms must change to fit the times, and that reliance on a supernatural power for guidance is clunky, inefficient and often at odds with humanity's vision of the future. The first group sees government as a necessary evil and potential threat; the second sees government as the main, vital instrument of all human progress.

The third group, a vast multitude of people who don't pay that much attention to politics because they are busy living their lives. Its members cannot be conveniently categorized as they range from people who would prefer near anarchy to others who long to be wrapped in the arms of the nanny state. Some will be religious but not political; others will be more political than religious. Most will share a general libertine view of cultural issues because they are steeped in the culture of today. It is in general a materialist, consumerist, hedonistic people who have good hearts, and when they look at themselves in the mirror, which they do a lot, they see individuals who care about others and the environment.

It's the thought, you see, that counts. In general many prefer that the government take care of the business of welfare, protecting Mother Earth, and keeping us safe from terrorists and toxic chemicals in our food supplies. They want it all. The problem is that a government big enough to give you everything and protect you from all harm is also big enough to take away your precious liberty. And given enough time, it will.

This third group is not easily convinced by the first group that they should inconvenience themselves with additional personal responsibility. Thus they become the big "moderate" swing vote that progressives can woo with feel-good promises. One of those promises is that the "people" deserve bipartisan consensus on the issues. It is an empty choice built on a false premise.

If bipartisan consensus means that the progressives always move their agenda forward, then that is a loss for conservatives trying to defend the erosion of personal freedom and responsibility. Thus a true conservative should never embrace bipartisan consensus for the sake of bipartisanship itself. The only bipartisan consensus acceptable is one in which liberty and personal responsibility is advanced in some way.

We have seen precious little of that in recent years. The 1990s welfare reform was probably the last real example, and ironically that was with a Democrat as president, so there you go!

The moral of this story: Beware calls for bipartisan consensus. It's the sound right now of progressives enlisting the help of the vast muddled middle to roll the conservatives.

Finally, rather than defend Rush Limbaugh from the president, it seems Rush can defend himself quite ably and did so in this post by National Review's Rich Lowry.

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters?

Rush also makes this interesting observative:

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Read the whole thing.

Maverick McCain Reminds Us Why We Need New Political Labels

With the new Congress in session but a few days, Sen. John McCain is demonstrating why he lost the election and making some of us think that it's just as well. The "maverick" is running interference for his friends on the other side of the aisle and is creating problems for Republicans.

This week, McCain appeared to be loosening up. He was hailed as a hero by Obama at a bipartisan dinner on Monday night and had a prime seat at the post-inaugural congressional luncheon, wedged between White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Obama offered a warm greeting to McCain and his wife, Cindy, as he made his way to the dais. ...

The surest sign of McCain's return to his "maverick" ways came when he caught wind of an effort by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to delay Clinton's confirmation vote by a day, pushing it from Tuesday to Wednesday because he was seeking greater disclosure about foreign donors to former president Bill Clinton's charitable foundation. McCain found the objection gratuitous -- despite policy disagreements with Clinton, he and most Republicans consider her well qualified -- and said so publicly.

"I think that's indicative of the role that John McCain is going to play," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who hatched the push-back against Cornyn's gambit over dinner with McCain on Tuesday night, and who followed him to the floor to support Clinton's confirmation. "He's going to play a very active role. He's going to try to forge bipartisan coalitions. And he won't shy away from controversy."

Memo to Sens. Collins and McCain: With 58 solid Democratic votes, Olympia Snowe, and you two, no one needs any "bipartisan coalitions." You are pretty much on the same side.

Jim Geraghty at National Review's Campaign Spot, agrees:

John McCain has prompted me to say the unthinkable.

The right man won in 2008. ...

Mac is back—back to his moral preening about how bipartisan he is, back to his reflexive demonization of his own party, back to his refusal to recognize any legitimate concerns raised by those who disagree with him. If we're going to have Democratic agenda enacted, better it be by a Democrat than a Republican obsessed with avoiding the "partisan" label in the White House.

Geraghty explains why McCain should have joined in the extra questioning of Mrs. Clinton.

I say this because the circumstances of Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State, while foreign governments have donated $41 million to her husband's foundation, and may continue to donate additional funds, is problematic. She may be the best possible Secretary of State in the eyes of some on the right, but that doesn't change the fact that the agreement between her husband's foundation and the Obama administration—in which donations will be disclosed once a year, and with no specification as to the format of the disclosure—is insufficient. (They're still not disclosing some donors.) ...

This isn't a partisan issue; Americans of all political stripes ought to be a little uncomfortable with foreign governments being able to donate millions to the household of the person who is in charge of negotiating with them.

Absolutely correct. Not that anyone seems to care.

Two Presidents, Two Protests, Two Days after Inauguration.

The Inauguration is upon us, and the annual peaceful protest of legalized abortion in Washington D.C. is fast approaching - January 20th and 22nd, respectfully. This brings to my mind a plethora of mixed feelings.
I was at a Catholic conference not long ago, and one of the keynotes at the conference was lauding the efforts of the March for Life. He praised the fact that 100,000 folks converge on the U.S. Capitol to walk in peaceful protest for the unborn. He thought how great it would be if we could get double that number January 22, 2009. What a great message it would send (In an aside, he was incorrect on his numbers ... 225,000 showed up at last year's March for Life ... I would love it if 450,000 showed up this year)!

But...

He told us not to forget about the march that will be happening two days before the election, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream is finally recognized (his niece would disagree), at the inauguration of the nation's first black president.

Wow. The mention of those two things in the same minute blew my mind. Our nation (and incidentally, 52% of Catholics) voted for a man who said that the first thing he would do as president is sign the abortion-on-demand Freedom of Choice Act; vowed immediately after the election to rescind the Mexico City policy; called the identification of a baby's human rights above his pay grade, said he doesn't want his daughters punished with a baby; lied to the nation about voting against protecting infants that were born alive; voted to cease funding for non-controversial amniotic and adult stem cell research (which has contributed to date to over 70 cures) in favor of a blank check for the rather controversial embryonic stem cell research (which has contributed to date to zero cures ... and which kills a human being); and countless other things that should have given a great many of us Catholics, including this keynote speaker, a little bit of pause before voting for him. And now, he praises the election along with the efforts of the March for Life?

The last time I went to Washington D.C. for the March for Life was January 22, 2001. We had just inaugurated Bush two days beforehand. Those at the March had higher hopes for the Pro-Life cause with Bush than with Clinton, but there was still uncertainty as to what that would mean on paper and in practice from the White House. It was announced that the newly inaugurated President was invited to take part in the March, but doubtful that he would show up. The speeches came and went, from Robert Dornan to Rabbi Leven to Sam Brownback to Randall Terry to Fr. Frank Pavone ... the whole Pro-Life movement was there. Suddenly, in the middle of one of the speakers’ talks, Sam Brownback literally interrupted and said, “We’ve just received good news from the White House.” Over 200,000 people were on pins and needles to hear the good news. Then, Senator Brownback announced that President George W. Bush’s first executive order in office was to re-instate the Mexico City policy … a policy that, in a nutshell, ends the funding of abortions as “aide” in other countries with America’s taxpayer dollars. The entire crowd started cheering for the newly elected president, chanting "Bush! Bush! Bush!"

I never voted for George W. Bush, in either election. I think the man has made some serious mistakes in his presidency. It cannot be denied, though, that he has done MORE for the cause to end abortion in this country than any President since Roe v. Wade.

Fast forward to today. Today, we inaugurate a man who has promised to expand Roe more than any President. Folks have said we can thank Bush for Obama’s election. Maybe. The supposedly Pro-Life Catholics who voted for him, though, need to pay close attention these next couple of days.

In two days, I will once again be practically on the White House lawn for the 36th annual March for Life, my first time since 2001. How interesting will it be, if Obama’s first executive order would be to rescind the Mexico City policy, with 300,000 (projected) pro-lifers at his doorstep? Will that speaker from the Catholic conference be disappointed (He did say he would be attending both "marches"), or has he, like many others in the country, already canonized the man?

And Then It's Back to Business as Usual ...

The headline at WUSA9.com in Washington, D.C.:

"Prostitution Free Zone During Inauguration"

Once it's over, Congress can go back to work.

Americans of Goodwill Coming Together?

Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and pastor of California's Saddleback mega-church, praised President-elect Obama for choosing gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to offer a prayer at the inauguration. "President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground."

I suppose this is a nice goodwill gesture since Robinson earlier criticized Warren's selection to give the invocation at the swearing-in: "It was like a slap in the face ... we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”

Is it just me or does it sound like there's a shortage of "goodwill looking for common ground" in Robinson's attitude? Of course not. Warren is just playing the politician, and that's one of the big things that rankles me about him. His "I'm okay, you're okay" hob-nobbing with the political elites gives me the impression that it's all about Rick Warren, not so much about the gospel message of conversion and salvation. The message is so soft that it borders on spineless, methinks, and I don't think that's what Americans of this age need to hear, regardless of how many books he's sold.

Others will surely disagree, but I just don't see Rick Warren and Gene Robinson as opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Robinson's definitely out there on the left end, but Warren is smack dab in the middle, hugging the center as only a fence-sitter can.

And if the selection of these two guys wasn't enough to get everyone's shorts in a knot, the Associated Press has revealed that

A prayer will be offered at the National Cathedral by Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information. The Islamic Society, based in Indiana, is the nation's largest Muslim group.

Three rabbis, representing the three major branches of American Judaism, will also say a prayer at the service, according to officials familiar with the plans. The Jewish clergy are Reform Rabbi David Saperstein, Conservative Rabbi Jerome Epstein and Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, sources said.

It is assumed that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Donald Wuerl, will also deliver a prayer, but this is standard fare.

Treasury Nominee Should Withdraw, or Be Withdrawn

Do we need a Secretary of Treasury -- the guy in charge of the IRS, the Secret Service, and who knows how many trillions of dollars in federal buyout, er, bailout funds -- who doesn't pay his taxes until he's about to get caught?

It may be that Timothy Geithner, until recently one of the Federal Reserve board members, is a true financial genius, but his character does not bear scrutiny. If the Senate confirms his nomination as Treasury secretary, then truly we are no longer a nation of laws but of men, and it becomes more and more obvious that the rules by which us lowly peons are expected to play by are not the rules of the elite.

By the way, did we forget to tell you that Geithner is considered the architect of the TARP ("bailout") program?

Shame on Barack Obama that Geithner's name has not already been pulled from consideration.

The AP report doesn't even adequately detail the full truth of the scandal, but it does include the typical responses we've come to expect from our "leadership" in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., dismissed the events as "a few little hiccups," and said he was "not concerned at all" about the impact.

Obama reiterated his support for Geithner.

Harry Reid wouldn't know corruption if it bit him on the ass.

For more details on how the Associated Press is trying to white-wash this guy's nomination, read this post over at BizzyBlog.

UPDATE -- Byron York has the damning details on how the IMF (International Monetary Fund) reimbursed Geithner for taxes he did not pay. More grist for the mill.

NOW they complain about inexperience?!

It seems as though a bunch of Senators from the President-elect's side of the fence are upset about his pick for the top CIA spot:

"I think, based on press reporting if it proves correct, Sen. Rockefeller has some concerns about his selection. Not because he has any concerns about Panetta, whom he thinks very highly of, but because he has no intelligence experience and because he has believed this has always been a position that should be outside of the political realm."
Though Panetta has no significant prior experience in intelligence matters, his selection continues a trend that has seen Obama select seasoned Clinton administration veterans known more for their Washington savvy than their partisan tendencies.

It would seem to me that inexperience begets inexperience. Rockefeller and Feingold are surprised that the most inexperienced President ever, voted in certainly not for his experience, picks someone inexperienced, showing his inexperience?

Obama and the Bubble

Politico is reporting that Barack Obama sure doesn't like the attention he is getting as the president-elect.

Obama bristles as the bubble closes in

... the president-elect appears increasingly conscious of the confines of his new position, bristling at the routine demands of press coverage and beginning to chafe at boundaries that are only going to get smaller.
...
All presidents and would-be presidents struggle with “the bubble” – the security detail and the always-there reporters that impose barriers to any spontaneous interaction with the outside world.

But Obama seems to be struggling particularly hard, particularly early.

Lovely. "We" have elected a private guy who appears testy when he's watched - which presidents are constantly - and when he is asked any specific question that deals with something that he either doesn't want to answer or doesn't know.

Unless he has a major attitude adjustment this isn't going to go well.

Two things come to mind: 1) He should have thought about the lack of privacy before he sought the job. 2) Surely members of the press had this one spotted months ago. Why are they just now getting around to letting us know? It's important, don'tcha think? I'm not saying the man's unfit for duty, but it may not be the job he's most suited for.

Wiring Around Nancy Pelosi

Despite polls showing nearly 70% of Americans in favor of increased domestic oil production, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no intention of allowing a straight up-or-down vote on eliminating the federal government's roadblocks to energy development. The Republican congressmen who are staging a recess "camp in" on the House floor are helping draw attention to the predicament, but hardly anyone is talking about the solution to the bottle-necked legislation.

The political solution is fairly simple, but it will require your help.

Pelosi is comfortable in her position because she is not threatened. The voters of her San Francisco congressional district will embrace her for her refusal to allow a vote on energy. There is nothing we can do about them, and therefore there is nothing we can do to pressure her. She is, for all intents and purposes, an immovable object.

But even Nancy Pelosi is not omnipotent. There is a procedural solution that does not require her approval or acquiesance. It is called a "discharge petition." If a majority of the members of the House of Representatives sign one attached to a specific bill or resolution, then that legislation must be brought up for a vote.

There is a discharge petition on House Resolution 3089, the "No More Energy Excuses Act of 2007" authored by Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry. His bill

would create a competitive leasing program to responsibly drill on federal lands in Alaska and remove the congressional moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf; encourage construction of new refineries by requiring the IRS to implement provisions from the Energy Policy Act of 2005; allow tax exempt bonds to be used for construction, and make use of federal lands for new refineries; expand electricity generation by encouraging investment into building new nuclear power plants and boosting alternative energy development through wind power by extending the Production Tax Credit for ten years.

Simply put, it removes restrictions on drilling and provides incentives for alternative energy resources. It might not be perfect - no one plan is - but it is a good start. It is not merely a "let's drill oil" bill.

According to former Rep. Ernest Istook, now a fellow at the American Heritage Foundation and appearing on Tulsa KFAQ's morning show with Pat Campbell, only one Democrat member of Congress has signed the discharge petition.

So far.

Our task: to get self-professed conservative Democrats to do more than pay election year lip service to energy independence. It should require 20 or 30 signers to get the job done.

I do not assume that this will be easy. I e-mailed my Democratic (and supposedly pro-drilling) congressman earlier today, asked him to consider signing the discharge petition. The return email (probably written by a staff member, I would assume) ignored my main point, contained a great deal of blather about possible solutions and then morphed into the sad fact that both parties are at fault for creating our energy woes to begin. And a "thank you" at the end.

I am not discouraged. It is exactly as I anticipated. One e-mail request is insufficient. It will take thousands of e-mails and phone calls to selected representatives before they figure out which way the wind is blowing.

For those of you in the 2nd District of Oklahoma, Rep. Dan Boren's web site, which has his e-mail link, can be found at www.house.gov/boren/index.shtml. If you have another "conservative" Democrat for a congressman, substitute the last name in the formula. Put it in your own words (please don't share form letters and don't spam!) and let your sincerity be up front and foremost. Be respectful - we are trying to win over hearts and minds.

This battle for energy independence is too important for you to stay on the sidelines. Our economy is teetering, the Democratic Party leadership is proposing solutions that will push it over the edge, and we are running out of time.