I really, genuinely hope that this doesn’t turn out the way it currently looks – we don’t need a Watergate sort of scandal given all the other trouble we have:

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being “confused” and “disoriented” fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was “insufficient,” “baseless” and “absolutely wild.”

Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama’s explanation was a “total lie” and that he feels he’s got a target on his back for political reasons.

“I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me,” Walpin said.

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was “confused” and “disoriented” at a May board meeting, was “unduly disruptive,” and exhibited a “lack of candor” in providing information to decision makers.

“That’s a total lie,” Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

As was said in that ill-famed scandal, its not the crime, but the cover up which is the problem. It is almost a certainty that President Obama did not say “give special treatment to so-and-so” – but Walpin says that one of Obama’s people got special treatment, and now Walpin is out. It certainly is a curious thing that the man who found irregularity is out and being slammed by Obama Administration officials – the real problem would come in if what Walpin discovered is a criminal offense and if Obama, himself, signed off on efforts to cover up the scandal.

The really bad news is that with Democrats in charge of the House and Senate, there will be no real investigation in to this matter. Even if public pressure forces a Congressional committee to hold hearings, the facts of life about Democrats make it a near certainty that it would be a white wash…and that means the problem will fester, and perhaps have crime piled on crime to keep the truth from coming out…until such time as GOPers are running Congress and are thus able to conduct a genuine investigation.

I hope someone will hand Obama a copy of All The President’s Men – it might be the most useful book Obama could read in 2009.

This is good advice for Nancy Pelosi, who has  changed her story regarding what she knew and was told about “enhanced interrogation” techniques several times. 

Her most recent outrageous claim was that she was misled by the CIA – a claim that CIA director and Obama appointee Leon Panetta outright refuted. 

Well, she has changed her story again, and is now blaming Bush.

 Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded Friday to CIA Director Leon Panetta’s public disagreement with her charge that she was misled by the agency on the use of waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques.

“We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people,” she said in a statement issued by her office. “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.

Pathetic. How can someone keep changing their story and expect to be taken seriously?

The story:

CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.

Panetta said that “ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) infuriated Republicans this week when she said in a news conference that she was “misled” by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.

Panetta, President Obama’s pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton’s former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,’” according to CIA records.

“We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication,” Panetta said in the memo. “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”

I’m glad that Panetta came to the defense of his troops on this – as I said when his appointment was announced, he is one of the few adults in the ranks of the Democrat leadership and he’s earned the gratitude of all Americans. It becomes ever more clear that Pelosi is caught in a trap of her own making – had she just told the truth from the beginning (ie, “I was ok with it back then, but I’ve changed my mind) then she wouldn’t have any trouble. But hatred of President Bush and pandering to the kook left outweighed any sense of honor on Pelosi’s part – Pelosi and Co wanted some sort of war crimes tribunal for President Bush and they could only sustain such insanity by pretending they weren’t living in America in 2002 and 2003 (you know, back when Democrats were attempting to out war-hawk the GOP).

It is clear that Pelosi must resign for the good of the nation – much as I’d like her to stick around as a millstone ’round the necks of Democrats it doesn’t serve America’s interests to have someone like Pelosi in charge of the people’s House.

UPDATE: Legal Insurrection asserts, correctly, that seeing as Pelosi has accused the CIA of criminal acts, its time for her to put up, or shut up.

The story:

A pro-family leader in Ohio is blasting pro-life Republican senators who voted to approve the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary, despite her long history of support for abortion and her connections to notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller.

Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) was among nine Republicans who supported the Sebelius nomination on Tuesday. Phil Burress, president of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, says he was extremely disappointed but not surprised that Voinovich backed Sebelius.

“He comes from this perspective that the President has the right to pick this person and that the senators are supposed to rubber-stamp them, and I don’t understand why he thinks that way,” he admits. “He’s had that position on many other occasions — and so did Mike DeWine when he was in the Senate, and it cost him his job.”

Burress, a friend and ally of Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), says he was “totally shocked” that Brownback voted for Sebelius. He believes Brownback’s move was driven by his desire to become the next governor of Kansas.

Governor Sebelius is who she is – a liberal Democrat brought in by a liberal Democrat to help advance a liberal, Democratic agenda. No problem – Obama is free to pick whom he wishes and were we in the Senate majority we should only reject a Presidential nominee for moral failure of some sort (and in the Sebelius nomination, a case can be made for that given her deceptions regarding the depth of her pro-abortion support). But since we are the minority and can’t change the result, there is no reason for us to join in and give liberal Democrats our votes. It is time to stand firm – and by registering a negative vote against someone like Sebelius we would be indicating our firmness with that very large and very important part of the GOP coalition: pro-life voters and devout Catholics (Sebelius, after all, has been de-facto excommunicated by the Catholic Church).

Here was a chance for the Senate GOP to let the people know that it is on the people’s side…and nine of them went and blew the chance. What for? Likely just a continuance of that poison known as Senatorial collegiality. Such a sentiment is fine when we’re dealing with political parties which have different ideas about how to achieve the same goals – but when the parties are so starkly divided over what America should be, adhering to the good-old-boy Senate model merely helps the other side and outrages our side.

Its time for the Senate GOP to wake up – in its small minority its job is to ask the questions which expose the liberal agenda, offer up alternatives and in all activities point the way to how the GOP will govern once returned to the majority. The House GOP is very much getting its act together (but still has a long way to go), while the Senate GOP is still acting like its the majority needing too placate a strong, liberal minority in order to keep the meat-grinder of government running smoothly. Times have changed, Senate GOP…time to change with them.

Part of the reason Obama won is because Bush kept us so safe that the concerns raised by 9/11 were fading from public memory…but now that liberalism is back in the national security saddle, people are starting to get concerned, again:

Minority Leader John Boehner and Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have turned out a new video. “Do you feel safer?” they ask. The message is simple: releasing the CIA interrogation memos, halting enhanced interrogation techniques, and shutting Guantanamo without a viable alternative facility for the terrorists may please the Left, but do not enhance national security.

This comes at a time when Attorney General Eric Holder is in Europe trolling for offers to take the Guantanamo terrorists off our hands. So far only Britain and France have taken any (one each), although Holder seemed sunny about the prospects that others will step forward. Even more startling, Holder did not rule out assisting European governments in their prosecution of former Bush officials, as the Washington Post reported:

Holder did not rule it out. “Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it,” he said. “This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law.”

All of that was too much for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who took to the Senate floor today, declaring:

It’s clear from these remarks that the administration is putting symbolism ahead of safety. This becomes even more apparent from Attorney General Holder’s admission that closing Guantanamo will be ‘one of the most daunting challenges’ he will face. He clearly realizes what most Americans realize: closing Guantanamo is not a good option if no safe alternatives exist.

There is an amazing level of immaturity in the Obama Administration approach to foreign and defense policy – it is a sort of policy by incantation: if Obama apologizes enough and if we show ourselves willing to put our own on trial, the world will forgive us the Bush years and thus we’ll be safe. You can be sure that if terrorists kill 3,000 more of us a year or two from now that the world will be profuse in its expressions of sympathy…but that won’t help the dead, and won’t help prevent a repeat. Only aggressive action against the enemy will do anything at all…President Bush kept us safe, in large part, by going out into the world and harrying the enemy at every opportunity. President Obama makes us less safe by stating, in advance, that there are certain things we won’t do…going around begging for others to take the Gitmo detainees off our hands just adds a pathetic element to the mix.

We can only hope – and pray – that over the 8 years of Bush enough damage was done to the terrorist that they won’t be able to mount a large attack until such time as we can get a GOP replacement into the White House. In other words, we have to find a way to win the political fight before Obama loses the military fight. Already the enemy is being encouraged – easily spotting Obama for the fool that he is and presuming that he’ll add “coward” to “fool” when pressed, at least as far as our enemies are concerned.

After some amateur hour moments by Janet Napolitano, a number of Republicans are calling for her to step down.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down. 

The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing “extremists,” and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment. 

Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans — but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas. 

“I don’t know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she’s caused,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. “I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let’s move on.” 

Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor. 

“Mr. President, fire that woman,” said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano’s comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. “To go on television and say your apology to be, ‘I’m sorry you were offended by this report,’ that’s no apology.” 

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano’s resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing. 

Such incompetence ought not be tolerated, and I agree, Napolitano has got to go. She’s making a ridiculous administration look even more ridiculous, and when we’re talking about the Homeland Security Secretary, her incompetence will make us less safe.

I can remember a rather heated argument I had with a coworker the day after the election. I was expressing my fears for the future of this country, and I mentioned Obama’s lack of experience as one of many, many reasons why this country was in trouble.

My coworker, a rabid Obama fan, couldn’t argue on that point, but suggested that what he lacked in experience he would make up for by appointing knowledgeable, qualified, and competent people to be around him.

Well, without getting into the ridiculous number of ethically challenged nominees and withdrawn nominations, it is quite clear that Obama, who clearly lacks the experience to be president (his piss-poor performance proving such) also lacks the judgment to nominate knowledgeable, qualified, and competent people. Geithner, his tax issues aside, would do better for the economy in a coma. 

And then there’s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is apparently so unsuited for the job she was nominated for that she thinks veterans are a national security threat, and the 9/11 terrorists came into thins country via Canada.

Apparently Obama was determined to surround himself with the most incompetent bunch of fools. One Canadian publication questioned how Napolitano ever got the job. “She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo,” they wrote. Funny, I can say the same thing about Barack Obama with regards to national security, the economy, and pretty much all the issues of the day.

Actually, it is not funny at all. The Obama administration is full of yahoos who appear to have no idea what they are doing.

Guess we can at least say she isn’t proud to be a backer of the Culture of Death:

President Barack Obama’s health secretary nominee, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, got nearly three times as much political money from an abortion doctor as she told senators.

In response to questions from the Senate Finance Committee, Sebelius wrote that she received $12,450 between 1994 and 2001 from one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers, Dr. George Tiller.

But records reviewed by The Associated Press show that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000-2002 to a political action committee that Sebelius established while state insurance commissioner to raise money for fellow Democrats.

The Health and Human Services Department said Monday that the omission was an oversight Sebelius would correct.

Omission? Yeah, whatever – seems like a lot of Democrats have a lot of omissions they have to correct these days.

And this is, perhaps, a step towards holding such famed and allegedly Catholic politicians as Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry to account:

According to the Washington Times, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington plans to maintain the pastoral request Kathleen Sebelius’ bishop made in 2007 asking her not to receive Communion.

Governor of Kansas Kathleen Sebelius is looking to move to Washington D.C. to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sebelius is President Obama’s second nominee to the post after Tom Daschle withdrew from consideration after it was revealed he failed to pay $140,000 in taxes.

Gov. Sebelius has both political and religious controversy surrounding her, with her local bishop, Archbishop Joseph Naumann asking her to refrain from Holy Communion for her “30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion.” The archbishop told CNA that he came to the point of asking the governor to refrain from Communion after speaking with her over a two-year period at various levels.

Upon hearing that she was nominated by President Obama, Archbishop Naumann wrote in his weekly column in The Leaven that “her appointment to HHS is particularly troubling.”

If Sebelius’ nomination as HHS Secretary is accepted and she moves to Washington D.C., she will face the same request to not receive Communion.

Believe what you want to believe – but if you are to go into your public life and claim the mantle of “Catholic”, then there are some requirements one will be held to. For far too long, in my view, Catholics who subscribe to a decidedly anti-Catholic world view and/or are unwilling to fight for Catholic truth have been given a pass by the Church, thus leading to confusion among the faithful as to what the Church teaches on the crucial issues of the day. Of course, I’m a lot more impatient than I should be, and the Church – by taking its time – might just be acting in a more Christian manner than I’m currently capable of achieving. Be that as it may, I welcome this move.

In an age of lies, in a time of great moral confusion, what is needed is truth and clarity. Better for there to be a smaller Church more strictly faithful to Truth than a larger Church not adhering to any truth at all. Once upon a time, the Church was a dozen men plus a few others…but those dozen men were strong in their faith and insistent upon speaking genuine truth. And so the dozen became millions. And so it will again, if it comes to that, provided we hold firm to Truth.

No surprise at all:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed a series of proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S. workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets as well as the timing of raids, federal officials said.

A senior department official said the delays signal a pending change in whom agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement choose to prosecute — increasing the focus on businesses and executives instead of ordinary workers.

“ICE is now scrutinizing these cases more thoroughly to ensure that [targets] are being taken down when they should be taken down, and that the employer is being targeted and the surveillance and the investigation is being done how it should be done,” said the official, discussing Napolitano’s views about sensitive law enforcement matters on the condition of anonymity.

And, of course, allowing the cases to be tied up in courts as business owners have legal teams to dispute ICE actions…meanwhile, the actual law breakers – the illegal immigrants – are essentially let off the hook, thereby ensuring that the human smuggling operations across our borders not only continue, but increase…with, naturally, the inherent risk that it won’t be just maids and drywallers coming across, but also the odd terrorist or two, or fifty.

Short of trying to deport all 12 million or so illegals in country, the best means of striking illegal immigration is to go after the illegals actually at work in America – remember, the reason they come here is to make money to send back home; if we continually disrupt what they are here to do, they will become progressively less likely to come across…and this, in turn, will de-fund the gangs causing Mexico all sorts of trouble as well as forcing the Mexican government to deal with the root cause of illegal immigration: Mexico’s horrifically corrupt and massively discriminatory economy which freezes out Mexican’s or all or mostly Indian descent.

But, of course, to take action against illegals is something the race-baiters in American cannot tolerate. The mere thought that America might gain control of its borders sends them into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage. And, of course, they donate heavily to the Democrat party, and now its time for the Democrat party to pay up for the campaign cash. So, keep that in mind, boys and girls: illegal immigration will continue and America will be less secure because Obama needed campaign cash last year.

This is a fine thing – if you are a liberal elite who lives a highly sheltered life and are extraordinarily unlikely to suffer any consequences of illegal immigration. For everyone else, its a bit of a raw deal – and the rawest deal is that given to the illegals, who will continue to be triply exploited – by the Mexican government which sends them north to earn foreign exchange for Mexico; by the gangs which have sealed tight the northern border of Mexico in order to control – and charge – the human cargo coming north (and, by the way, showing that the border can be secured, if one wishes to do it); and, finally, by rich Americans who neither care about native and legal-immigrant workers, nor about the illegal workers…all that matters is high profits, low costs and cheap domestic servants.

Setting the record straight on just what is at issue with Sebelius’ abortion position, and what Archbishop Naumann is doing by denying her communion:

Your Excellency: As you know the Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, is a Catholic with a long record of supporting abortion and has been nominated by President Obama to be the director of Health and Human Services.

Last year you wrote the governor a letter asking that she refrain from presenting herself to receive Holy Communion because she was not in communion with the Catholic Church and its teachings. Can you explain what prompted you to do this?

Archbishop Naumann: I had entered into a rather long dialogue with the governor over many months, trying as best as I could, to make her aware of the seriousness of her past actions as well as her present positions. Following our long conversations and additional actions on her part, such as vetoing a bill that was aimed at trying to regulate abortion clinics, I first asked her, privately in a letter, not to present herself for Communion for her own integrity and for her own spiritual welfare. My intention was not to make that public.

It was only subsequent to that when in March of the following year she presented herself for communion at one of our parishes and the pastor informed me that I wrote her again renewing my request. I informed her that I would make the request public because, in addition to my concern for her spiritual wellbeing, I was also very concerned about others being misled by her presenting herself as a faithful Catholic while holding positions that were completely contrary to our teaching on the sanctity of human life.

In many circumstances the media has tried to politicize the issue saying that you are abusing your pastoral authority to influence politics. How would you respond to that?

Archbishop Naumann: My intention and my aim have not been to influence politics at all. In fact the timing on all of this was really dictated by the governor’s own actions. It was not, for example, juxtaposed to an election. My concern was, first of all, for her spiritual welfare and then secondly, and equally important, to protect the rest of my flock from being misled by her actions.

Frequently I received letters from people who were outraged at how the governor continued to go to Communion and yet consistently over the years aggressively supported legalized abortion. I was not principally concerned with the people who were writing me letters because they understood the contradiction. My greater concern was the larger number of faithful who were not writing letters and who were subject to being confused and might be thinking that perhaps the Church did not really see this as all that serious of an issue. My motivation was primarily to protect the Church and her teaching, as well as to protect our people from being misled.

We Catholics were shocked at the number of Catholics hoodwinked into voting for Obama last year and the determination becomes ever stronger that, at least, no Catholic have the excuse of ignorance regarding such things. After Vatican II and Humanae Vitae there seeped into the Church the false belief that the Catholic Church wasn’t too concerned on matters of birth control and abortion – that, some how, Catholic teaching on such matters was officially the same, but not to be taken seriously. This false understanding was advanced with a rhetorical wink and a nudge by various liberal theologians, some of whom were (and are) ordained priests and bishops. This has led to confusion among many Catholics on these issues, and thus left the faithful open to various underhanded appeals by pro-abortion politicians seeking Catholic support.

Obama is just the strongest example of this sort of thing – a radical, pro-abortion leftist he yet managed to convince a large number of Catholics, including a substantial number of strongly practicing Catholics, that his pro-abortion position wasn’t as important as his positions on other aspects of Catholic social teaching, notably Obama’s support for programs allegedly designed to help the poor. What was missing was the complete understanding that it is morally worthless to provide welfare for the poor if you are also murdering as many of the poor as you can – might as well greedily keep all your money to yourself rather than engage in the hypocrisy of donating money to those you permit to survive the abortion gauntlet.

So, on we go – and Archbishop Naumann has laid it out: we are not concerned here, strictly, with politics but in ensuring that all those who voluntarily claim the Catholic faith for their own adhere to the teachings of that faith. No one is forced to be a Catholic, but if you are to take the label of Catholic and/or seek the support of Catholics, an honest adherence to genuine Catholic teaching is required. Naturally, this is treated on the left as an unwarranted breach of the separation of Church and State…but, of course, leftists who believe that sort of thing believe all sorts of other nonsense, and its best to not worry about what they think on such matters…staring too long into an insane abyss runs the risk of going insane, yourself, after all.

We’re here to impart the truth as we know it, not to curry favor with those who disagree with us.

The thus far untold part of this story:

“Right now, you get the feeling this is all about protecting [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel,” says a former Treasury Department lawyer, who worked in that department’s counsel’s office on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) before joining a D.C.-based law firm in February. “At the time, we were led to believe there were basically three or four people from the Administration at the table when the final deals were cut and one of them was Emanuel.”

Informal advisers to Geithner are growing increasingly frustrated, they say, that Geithner is being held up as the straw man for the public anger over the bonuses. “Just over the weekend you saw a new guy added to the target list, [White House economics adviser Larry] Summers,” says a longtime Geithner colleague at the New York Fed. “You have Dodd, Geithner, Summers, but there were other, more senior political people involved in this mess, and their names aren’t being mentioned. Why isn’t anyone asking Rahm Emanuel, ‘What meetings were you in?’ ‘What did you and the President know and when did you know it?’ Tim has some culpability, but he’s not the guy who signed off on the Dodd language. He wasn’t that empowered to do something like that.”

They have to protect Emanuel because the fall of Emanuel would be the domino closest to Obama, and it would be hard to keep Obama clean in the AIG mess if Emanuel was forced out over the scandal. The circumstantial evidence is already very strong that the sign-off on the AIG bonuses was the result of “pay for play”, Chicago-style politics; Obama can’t afford “what did the President know and when did he know it” questions about AIG. But this means that, at least for a while, Emanuel has to survive…thus the apparent tossing of Geithner and Summers under the bus.

We must keep in mind the depth upon depth of corruption we’re going to have here – we have a hopelessly corrupt Democratic party leadership which feels that an Obama Administration means a free pass. They aren’t worried about the Justice Department coming down on them, they know they can stymie any Congressional ethics probes and they figure the MSM has gotten itself too highly invested in Obama to really play the role of investigative watchdog. But the lynch pin of all this is Obama – as long as he’s safe and popular, everything else comes together, and so they have to keep the muck as far away from him as possible.

No, we’re not referring to Obama’s economic policies, but how our DHS Secretary refers to terrorism:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

To put it in terms that Napolitano will apparently understand, this is double-plus-ungood.

Duh.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

The economists’ assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama’s popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration’s economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

Doesn’t shock me one bit. The entirety of Obama’s young presidency can be described as an epic failure… He’s proven that he wasn’t ready for the job.  You liberals should have listened to us.

How much more of this are we going to take?

The election of Barack Obama offered the promise of a new set of fixes for the financial crisis and the economy, a do-over that might help nurse the stock market back to health.Since then, the market hasn’t just gotten worse — it’s turned in its worst performance ever for a new president.

The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen 21 percent during Obama’s first seven weeks in office. Count back to Election Day and the results are even bleaker: That afternoon, the Dow closed at 9,625. Now it stands at 6,547, a loss of 32 percent.

Obama’s ardent defenders will try to shift blame on Bush, but the markets clearly aren’t comforted by Obama’s proposals, and instead of easing tensions, he exasperates them. 

Market analysts usually play down the influence of presidents on the market but say this time could be different as taxpayer dollars prop up private companies and Obama’s first proposed budget stands at $3.6 trillion, with a gaping deficit.

In this case, said Wachovia Securities chief market analyst Alfred E. Goldman, investors are saying “they have no confidence in the stimulus package doing much stimulation anytime soon. And they’re greatly concerned about the size of the budget.”

On some of the most wrenching recent days in the market, it’s been easier to connect cause and effect.

The Dow sank 4 percent on Feb. 10 as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled a new bank bailout plan that Wall Street immediately criticized as laughably light on details.

Several weeks later, investors shaved another 4 percent off the Dow after the government agreed to give insurer American International Group an extra $30 billion, bringing its loan total to $180 billion.

Now the Dow seems to drift lower day after day, with Wall Street waiting for clarity and selling in the meantime.

Investors want to know when and how the government will cleanse banks of bad debt and whether it will suspend accounting rules requiring companies to value assets at current market prices.

As the brilliant Thomas Sowell said, Obama should resign… maybe then the economy will get better.

Can someone say “too little’ too late?”

President Barack Obama has chided his attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., for describing America as a “nation of cowards” when discussing race, wading into a tumult that flared over Holder’s indictment of the way this country talks about ethnicity.

“I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language,” Obama said in a mild rebuke from America’s first black president to its first black attorney general.

In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, the president said that despite Holder’s choice of words, he had a point.

“We’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict,” he said, adding, “We could probably be more constructive in facing up to sort of the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.”

In fact, not only was this too little too late, but Barack Hussein Obama essential agreed with Holder’s ridiculous assertion.

It seems like everyday Obama is determined to prove to the country that he wasn’t ready to be president. Between his failure to put a cabinet together or nominate individuals who aren’t ethically challenged, abandoning his campaign promise of bipartisanship, blatantly lying about earmarks in the stimulus bill, growing the national debt in 8 weeks quicker than any past president has, attacking his media critics, or insulting the UK, it is quite clear this guy is an amateur who has no business in the White House.

Obama nominates pro-abortion Governor Sebelius:

On Saturday February 28, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that on Monday the President will nominate Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This President removed limitations on abortion by overturning the Mexico City Policy and recently announced he will remove the conscience protections for pro-life medical practitioners.

It appears that the release of news was timed to occur on the same day that “Catholics United”, a group which works in concert with “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good”, launched its new web site entitled “Catholics for Sebelius”. On that advocacy site this group stretches accuracy beyond anything they have done before. They argue that this Governor who has been told by her Bishop, Joseph Naumann, to refrain from presenting herself for Holy Communion until she takes “the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion” is an acceptable choice for Catholics. One is welcomed to this site with these words “Catholics across the nation are rallying behind the nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Here you’ll find information about Gov. Sibelius’ record on issues important to Catholics, and an opportunity to register your support for her nomination.”

Let me begin with words from Francis Cardinal George which expose the error behind this organization’s claim: “Catholic Social thought is built upon the foundational truth that every single human life has an inherent human dignity and must be respected and protected. The unborn child, who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless. Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.”

The creation of the “astroturf” netroots for Sebelius indicates that Obama and Co are determined to confuse the issue of Catholic social teaching in 2012 as much – or more – than they did in 2008. It was a very clever, very cynical campaign for Catholic support in 2008 – pretend that one is not a pro-abortion fanatic and work the rest of Catholic social teaching for all its worth, and have one or two Catholics willing to sell out be your front men. It worked – Obama secured a majority of Catholic votes in 2008, reversing what happened in 2004 and possibly ensuring himself election to the Presidency of the United States (its not completely clear if Catholics, voting as they did in 2004, would have turned the election to McCain – but it sure would have been a heck of a lot closer, if they had).

On the day after the election as we Catholics reviewed the exit poll data, we were dismayed that we had failed so miserably to impart the truth about Obama’s de-facto pro-abortionism. But we also figured out quickly where we had failed – we hadn’t been as clear as possible that Catholic social teaching requires as its base an absolute defense of human life from conception until natural death. Wise to the ways of Obama, we’re not going to make the same mistake in 2012 – but now we see that Obama determined to try a repeat, and Governor Sebelius is going to be built up as an orthodox Catholic in Obamaniac talking points so that opposition to her – and, by extension, Obama – appears to contravene Church teaching.

Nothing doing – we’re out of the gate early, and we’re not going to let anyone forget that Governor Sebelius, far from being a stalwart for Catholic social teaching, is actually an excommunicate Catholic and member of the Culture of Death and until she repents, she can’t be properly considered worthy of Catholic political support.

From the Book of Matthew, Chapter 5:

¹¹Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

¹²Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Blessed are you, Biship Naumann:

Denver, Colo., Feb 20, 2009 (CNA).- In a startling defense of legal abortion supporter Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Catholics United has attacked Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, accusing him being more interested in trying to score political points against the governor than in crafting effective abortion policy within the reality of politics.

The salvo from Catholics United comes as advisors to President Obama have told the press that he has decided on Sebelius as his next secretary of Health and Human Services nominee.

Kathleen Sebelius, who professes to be Catholic, has a problematic record on abortion.

In the Spring of 2008, Archbishop Naumann met with Gov. Sebelius to ensure that she understood the gravity of her position. After meeting with her, Archbishop Naumann asked her to stop receiving Communion.

As Archbishop Naumann explained to CNA, he requested that Gov. Sebelius stop receiving Communion because of her “30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion.”

The Thursday statement by Catholics United, which is mostly dedicated to rebuffing the president of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, marks the first time that the organization has targeted a specific Catholic bishop by name.

Catholics United is but a front for the democrat party, pure and simple. Their website states:

Catholics United is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic Social Tradition. 

Apparently, to C.U., the lives of pre-born babies do not figure into their vision of “justice and the common good.”

Hypocrites.

It is my hope that, like Bishop Naumann, more bishops take their role as shepherds of the flock seriously, and fearlessly speak out against Catholics who abandon the sacredness of life in their lust for power.

Mark and I have been saying for a long time that the Democrats phony tough stance on ethcis and corruption would come back to bite them… and it looks like they are about to get bit really hard.

The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same “culture of corruption” issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.

Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is only the latest embarrassment.

Senate Democrats accepted Burris because they believed what he told them: He was clean. Burris now admits he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat.

“The story seems to be changing day by day,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.

The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn’t Burris’ conduct alone; it’s the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.

• The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation. It’s partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.
• Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were provided millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
• Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.
• Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration’s point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs. Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.
• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed after revealing he had tax troubles.
• Obama’s initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.
• While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.

The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed his anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.

On that note, I am scheduled to do a book signing at CPAC 2009. If any of our reader will be there, bring your copy of Caucus of Corruption (or buy one there) and check the final schedule and I will sign your book!

And of course, bookmark Democrat Corruption, which, as the name suggusts, chronicles corruption in the Democratic Party.

One does begin to wonder if Democrats, on the whole, know what law is, and why we must be a nation of laws, not men:

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is demanding the Kansas Legislature join with her in violating state law to use the budget crisis to score political points, top House Republicans told Kansas Liberty Monday.

“The Legislature doesn’t have the luxury of operating outside the law,” said House Speaker Mike O’Neal. “Kansas for years has had on the books procedures a governor can follow in times like these, but she’s refused to exercise those options, to the detriment of the state. She’s better than that. It just seems she’s going out of her way to make people upset with the Legislature.”

The latest budget drama began Monday when Sebelius called a meeting of the State Finance Council to seek authority for a $225 million certificate of indebtedness to cover a cash flow crisis.

That meeting ultimately was postponed, Republican legislative leaders said, when they made clear to Sebelius that the Legislature couldn’t authorize additional debt.

O’Neal and House Majority Leader Ray Merrick, in conversations with Kansas Liberty, cited an analysis by Legislative Research Director Alan Conroy that concludes such an action would be illegal because the state wouldn’t be able to cover the certificate by the end of the current fiscal year, on June 30, as required by state statute KSA 75-3725(a).

However, the Sebelius administration contended Monday that approval of an additional certificate of indebtedness would not be contrary to state law.

“Legally we are ready to go,” said State Budget Director Duane Goossen at a hastily called press conference late Monday.

Goossen had created a spreadsheet that he said described how the certificate of indebtedness could be used to borrow money, and that all that was needed was authorization by the State Finance Council. He was less clear on how the money would be repaid, a legal requirement. The certificate would raise internal borrowing to record levels.

The relevant statute is here, and it does appear to agree with the Majority Leader’s assertion about the illegality of Governor Sebelius’ proposal.

Be that as it may, here is what we’ve got – a budget crunch in Kansas will require some cuts in spending which the Democrat governor does not wish to make; the governor cooks up a plan to illegally used debt to cover the shortfall so that she doesn’t have to cut her pet projects; naturally, such a plan would not pass muster with a GOP-controlled legislature, so the governor announces that the people of Kansas won’t get their tax refunds and State employees won’t get paid and then relies on the MSM to use her narrative of events, thus putting the onus on the GOP, which merely wants to obey the law. Its clever politics, but entirely dishonest and in direct contravention of the long-term interests of the people of Kansas…but such considerations aren’t important for Democrats, only power and the spending which creates power matter.

We can now see why governor Sebelius has found herself de-facto excommunicated from the Catholic Church – the dishonesty which propelled her to making immoral moves on the issue of life is the same dishonesty which is now instructing her to break the laws of Kansas. I urge the governor of Kansas to re-think her life’s work…to come to an understanding that politics is not the highest expression of human life and that some times we have to bend to the harsh realities of our times. In the end, remember, its really just a matter of not spending as much as she’d like as soon as she’d like – it profits a man (or woman) nothing to gain the whole world, but lose his soul…governor Sebelius seems to be willing to lose hers over a bit of welfare spending, plus or minus.