The Democrats have large majorities in the House and Senate along with a Democratic President. There are two different ways they could go.

The first is to play it safe, stay in the center, and hope to add to their numbers in 2010. That's certainly what the Republicans would do if they were in the same position, but of course, the GOP has terrible political instincts.

What the Democrats realize is that if they take it slow, their base will become angry and given the state of the economy and historical trends, the GOP has an excellent chance to make decent gains in 2010 no matter what they do.

The other option the Democrats have, which is exactly what I would do if I were in their place, is to treat this as a historic opportunity and ram as much of their agenda down people's throats as they can. That will undoubtedly cost them more seats in 2010, but it's much easier to enact legislation than repeal it and the Democrats will probably never have a better opportunity than this one.

So, right now, when Barack Obama is at the height of his power because he's in the honeymoon period, the Democrats are going to try to radically shift our country to the left as far as possible.

They understand that it's best to strike while the iron is hot. You see, Obama ran as an everything to everybody, centrist candidate -- yet he's governing like Hugo Chavez. Additionally, he's pushing a lot of huge, radical, unpopular policies. Last but not least, there's a deep recession going on and traditionally, the politicians in charge fare very badly when the economy is bad.

Obama has already shed 7-10 points of approval in a month. By the end of March, it wouldn't be surprising if he were in the mid-low fifties in approval. By April (maybe earlier?), it's possible we could even see him in the forties. In other words, the Dems need to move legislation now, while Obama is still very popular, to maximize their chances of pushing a socialist agenda through.

So, that's why the Republicans need to do everything they can to slow things down. Insist on full debates of the issues. Filibuster everything initially, even if it's going to pass later. Make the Democrats read every bill into the record. If we can hold these guys up for just a month or two, it will make a big difference.

Obama ISN'T going to be popular forever. The sort of happy talk Obama specializes in DOES get old. Americans are going to get increasingly LEERY of these big government solutions to all of our problems. It will happen and it will happen relatively fast -- probably in a few months' time. When it does, the fight won't be over, but in D.C., where opinion polls are treated like words from an oracle, it will make a big difference.

That's why the GOP, at least for a few months, should do everything in its power to throw sand in the gears. Let them call us obstructionists. Let them complain. Once Obama has been weakened and his agenda becomes increasingly unpopular, then we can move on from the slow walk tactics. But, right now, it is vitally important that the GOP stand tall, stand together, and stick a leg out to trip the Dems on every bill.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

"People have been calling for national dialogues and conversations for decades. It usually works something like this: Liberals say we need a frank discussion about race (or class or gender) in this country, and then they proceed to bludgeon any conservative stupid enough to take them up on their offer." -- Jonah Goldberg

The latest person calling for a dialogue on race, rather rudely I might add, is our Attorney General, Eric Holder,

Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, said Wednesday the United States was "a nation of cowards" on matters of race, with most Americans avoiding candid discussions of racial issues. In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

Here's the simple reality. There is no real dialogue on race in this country -- and there will probably be no real dialogue on race in this country for the foreseeable future.

Why? Because white people aren't free to speak honestly about race.

Well, why is that?

First off, there's a grievance industry in this country full of parasites like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP who make a living by screaming "racism" over every slight, real and imagined, that anyone can come up with.

Also, the Left has made convincing black Americans that white people hate them a bedrock part of their political strategy. That keeps a lot of blacks falsely believing that white people hate them, falsely believing that Republicans hate them, and thereby keeps them thinking that they have no other choice than to rely on the Democratic Party. If most black Americans understood the truth, the Democrats would lose their death grip on black voters and they would tank as a party.

Additionally, black Americans are constantly told they're victims and that if they're not successful, it's because of racism. Maybe in the sixties that was true, but it has certainly never been true in my adult lifetime. It's easier to get a scholarship to college if you're black. It's easier to get into a better college if you're black. As a matter of fact, in every day job I have ever had it was easier to get hired and promoted if you were black. It was also harder to get fired. Heck, even Barack Obama would have had zero chance of being elected President if he weren't black. But, that doesn't fit in with the whole "black Americans are victims of racism" meme the left has to push to keep them in line, so they tend to shout racism anytime someone points out the obvious truth that everybody knows, but doesn't admit publicly.

Combine that with the fact that race isn't the most pleasant subject to talk about anyway. People get emotional over it, they tend not to treat the subject rationally, and if you're white and express any opinion that Jesse Jackson wouldn't immediately agree with, you're pretty sure to be branded a racist, no matter how irrational that may be, while over-the-top racists like Jeremiah Wright get a free pass no matter what they say. Go ask Don Imus, who was hounded off the air just for saying "nappy headed hoes" (what a joke) or the poor guy who's being accused of being a racist because he has mocked Al Sharpton in several of his cartoons -- Oh, I'm sorry, the official reason is because this cartoon, which obviously references the killer chimp that everyone is talking about, is really supposed to be about Obama,

If you claim to think that cartoon is racist, then you're either incredibly hypersensitive or plain old lying -- one or the other. Period.

So don't expect to see a real "dialogue" any time soon -- or at least for as long as the Left can continue to benefit from crying "racism" any time someone doesn't go along with their agenda.

That being said, electing Barack Obama proved without a shadow of a doubt that this is not a racist country and since that's the case, I hope to see a lot more people, black and white, refusing to dance to the tune of the race hustlers on the left who are constantly pretending to be offended to fill their wallets or further their political agendas.

PS: If this sounds a little more honest than what you will hear from most white people or even from most bloggers, it's because I work for myself, the sort of people who advertise with me could not care less what the Left thinks about anything, and because I think the race baiting b*stards on the left are mostly talk. They can shout, they can whine, and they can moan, but I think their power is highly overestimated and the more people who stand up and say so, the better off we'll be as a country.

Also see,

Six Uncomfortable Truths About Race in America
The Democratic Party's Stealth War On Black Americans
The GOP Needs To Reach Out To Conservative Black Voters

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

In one of the more bizarre legal twists that has been seen in a long while, trespassing illegal aliens have been awarded $78,000 because a rancher detained them, on his property, until the U.S. Border Patrol arrived,

A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages -- $60,000 of which were punitive.

...All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

...The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.

...The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.

His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.

In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

So, these criminals sneak across the border, trespass on his land, he detains them, and they end up staying in the country illegally trying to get VISAs while he's out $78,000?

To begin with, no one in the country illegally should be able to sue an American citizen in the first place.

Secondly, these illegals are criminals twice over. Not only are they illegals, they were trespassing on his land. If they hadn't been flagrantly breaking the law, there wouldn't have been any sort of problem.

As is, I'm scratching my head figuring out what this guy is supposed to have done wrong. He detained people who weren't supposed to be on his property in the first place. So Barnett "threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape," so what? That's a completely appropriate way to treat criminals who are trespassing on your land.

Moreover, how insane is it that an American citizen has been put in a position where he has had to detain "more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years"? He has unknown people walking all over his property, trashing it -- and don't kid yourself, given that illegals are people who don't respect our laws by definition, his life and his family's life have probably been in danger many times.

Why does this guy have to go through this nonsense? So a bunch businessmen with the ethics of mafioso can save a few bucks by hiring illegals? So Democrats can get a few extra voters? So racist groups like La Raza can make a few bucks complaining about something? Because Republicans are afraid of being called racist if they insist on enforcing laws that Mexicans are particularly wont to break?

If anything, Roger Barnett should be given a medal for keeping 10,000 illegal aliens off the streets while the federal government sat around with their thumbs up their *sses and let anyone and everyone just wander into our country.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

Despite what some people seem to think, because it's so complex, economic issues tend to be very non-intuitive and difficult to predict. You could easily put together four Nobel prize winning economists and not only find that none of them agreed with each other on certain real world issues of extreme significance, but that none of them did a good job of predicting what would actually happen economically over the next few years.

So, you can be certain that there will be plenty of economists who would disagree with the latest column from one of my favorite economics writers, Robert Samuelson. However, I have privately wondered about the ramifications of the same phenomenon he discusses today and tend to think that his analysis has a lot of merit,

A Lost Decade Ahead?

...What happened to Japan in the 1990s?

It did not, as some commentators say, suffer a "depression." Not even a "great recession," as others put it. Japan experienced a listless, boring prosperity. Its economy expanded in all but two years (1998, 1999), although the average annual growth rate was a meager 1.5 percent. Unemployment rose to 5 percent in 2001 from 2.1 percent in 1990. Not good, but hardly a calamity. Japan remained a hugely wealthy society.

Its situation compelled attention mainly because it confounded conventional wisdom. From 1956 to 1973, Japan had grown 9 percent a year; in the 1980s, it was still growing at 4 percent. Japan was widely expected to overtake the United States as the richest, most advanced economy. It didn't. Worse, its semi-stagnation defied the notion that modern economics enabled government to ensure adequate growth.

...Japan has what Richard Katz, editor of the Oriental Economist, terms a "dual economy." On the one hand, export industries (autos, steel, electronics) are highly efficient. They face intense global competition. On the other, many domestic industries (food processing, construction, retailing) are inefficient and sheltered from local competition by regulations or custom.

This has suited most Japanese. Exports earned the foreign currency needed to buy food and fuel imports. Meanwhile, protected domestic industries provided the job security and social stability that most Japanese preferred to hyper-competition. While exports thrived, they -- and the supporting business investment -- were Japan's engine of economic growth.

The trouble is that this system broke down in the mid-1980s. The rising yen made Japanese exports costlier on world markets. New competitors -- South Korea, Taiwan -- emerged. Japan lost its engine of growth and hasn't found a new one. That's Japan's central economic problem.

...Since the early 1980s, American economic growth has depended on a steady rise in consumer spending supported by more debt and increasing asset prices (stocks, homes). Just as the mid-1980s signaled the end of Japan's export-led growth, the present U.S. slump signals the end of upbeat consumption-led growth. But its legacy is an overbuilt and overemployed consumption sector, from car dealers to malls. The question is whether our system is adaptive enough to create new sources of growth to fill the void left by retreating shoppers.

The amount of government spending we're engaging in as a society is absolutely unsustainable -- and we haven't even gotten to the point, which we're going to reach very soon, when the Ponzi scheme that is Medicare/Social Security is going to leave everyone with a job holding the bag for the "Baby Boom" generation.

Meanwhile, on the private side: look how much of our economic growth in the 90s was fueled by a phony baloney internet bubble. Then from there, we moved on to the housing bubble. All the while, Americans were spending money they didn't have for things that they really didn't need. That's why Americans have $8,299 per household in credit card debt.

Put another way, we've been spurring our current economic growth at the price of mortgaging our economic future -- but, what if the bill has finally come due and that gloomy future starts now? Then, as Samuels says, we're going to have to "create new sources of growth" to keep the economy moving. Is that doable? Absolutely -- but, an overweening government is the mortal enemy of capitalism and economic growth. The more government regulations, taxes, and interference we have, the less innovation, creativity, and new industry we're going to see.

That could be an extremely scary prospect because we are very economically dependent on consumption and unfortunately, eventually, that consumption is going to have to slow significantly as debts are repaid. Could that lead to the sort of "lost decade" of mediocre growth that Samuelson describes? Yes, it could and that would be a very worrisome prospect for our entire country.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

Glenn Thrush wrote a piece called, "The 7 stimulus lessons for the Dems," that does a good job of summing up the rather bizarre view the Left seems to have of "bipartisanship."

Over and over, Nancy Pelosi and her allies privately delivered the same message to Barack Obama: Mr. President, you can have bipartisanship or you can have a stimulus bill, but you can't have both.

He seems to have gotten the message. House Republicans, badly outnumbered and shorn of let's-make-a-deal moderates by their losses in the two elections, have proven remarkably immune to crossover appeals, as have most GOP senators.

On Thursday, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's point man, told reporters that his boss was still committed to bipartisanship, but admitted something fundamental had changed when the GOP "shift[ed] from bipartisan overtures to outright mockery."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) put it more bluntly -- blaming much of the week's drama on Obama's commitment to courting House Republicans, even after it was apparent they wanted to cast a unanimous nay as a point of partisan pride and principle.

"I don't think he should have set the expectation he was going to get Republican votes," the Financial Services chairman told Politico on Friday. "He set himself a high bar -- and an irrelevant bar... and he didn't achieve it... He should not have legitimized [the notion of bipartisanship], that prompted their partisan reaction... I don't think he's going to make that mistake again."

One Democrat likened Obama's desire to score even a single GOP defector to Abraham's pursuit of a "single virtuous man" in Sodom and Gomorrah.

After Friday's stimulus shutout, House Republicans were snickering at Obama's courtship of moderate Michigan GOPer Fred Upton, who got an invite to the president's Super Bowl party and a ride on Air Force One - and still voted no.

"The president learned a lesson," one GOP aide quipped. "Fred's going to ride on your plane, eat your M&Ms, but he ain't going to vote for your bill."

The liberal view of bipartisanship: coming up with a bill that most conservatives consider to be among the worst in the history of our Republic, ramming it through the House and the Senate outside the normal process, cutting Republicans out of the committee negotiations, but expecting Republicans to vote for it because they were taken on a "ride on Air Force One" and got to eat the President's M&M's.

Setting aside the idea whether bipartisanship turns out to be good or bad for the country (usually bad I would say) or how achievable it is in the first place when both sides not only don't view problems the same way, but think the other side's "solutions" will only make the problem worse, bipartisanship actually means compromising on legislation. Not a tiny compromise on the edges -- it means big compromises. There was none of those with this bill, although to be fair, the Democrats would have had to give the GOP a lot in return for voting for this monstrosity. A constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to raise taxes, a promise of no further bailouts, and a 10% cut of staff from every government agency but defense perhaps -- that might be an even trade? Maybe -- maybe not -- but, it's worth noting, the Right was asked to compromise everything they believed in to support this bill, while the Left wasn't asked to make any significant compromises.

It's also worth noting that it was Barack Obama who made unity and bipartisanship a core part of his campaign platform. Granted, Bush ran as a "uniter, not a divider, too" but he actually tried to make it work. He did institute a "new tone." He did partner with Ted Kennedy to write "No Child Left Behind." His payback for his effort to reach out to Democrats was a campaign of demonization unprecedented in the history of American politics. John McCain also promised bipartisanship, but John McCain would have actually made it work by moving his proposals to the left. That's why Republicans like me constantly want to strangle the guy.

With Obama, the "unity" and "bipartisanship" rhetoric was nothing more than empty slogans -- more lies from a pathological liar who is so habitually deceptive that he will make Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton look honest in comparison by the time he's done.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

The Republicans have wisely raised holy hell over both the bailout of the Big 3 and the stimulus package. In both cases, the Democrats were bloodied more than the Republicans. In part that's because the GOP couldn't go much lower with the public and their base anyway, but we've got to take our victories where we can find them.

Now, here's the thing: at the core of Obama's agenda are more truly massive wasteful spending projects. We've got more TARP coming up, jobs programs, global warming waste, a huge Big 3 bailout, more bailouts, billions for the post office, on and on and on.

There are two key things to remember about the American people.

#1) They despise pork, earmarks, and the sort of special interest favors that are inevitably crammed into these bills.

#2) The American people are almost genetically predisposed to be distrustful of big changes -- and that's exactly what Obama is trying to do. He's essentially trying to turn the United States into the "Soviet Union lite" economically in a short period of time and it's going to scare the hell out of people -- with good reason.

As long as the Republican Party keeps raising hell, the American people will keep their eye on what's going on, and they will become more and more negative about each new spending project -- and, this is important -- they will become more angry about the spending projects that have already been passed.

If the GOP keeps this up, it will help rebuild the Republican brand and fire up the base. Furthermore, this has the potential to become one of the biggest domestic issues, particularly if the economy doesn't pick-up -- which is possible.

PS: As far as I'm concerned, given how much we're spending and the big promises the Dems are making, if we don't have a 5% growth rate in the 2nd quarter of 2009, all this spending has been a huge failure.

PS #2: We're not going to have a 5% growth rate in the 2nd quarter of 2009.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

There is a virtually unlimited number of wasteful programs that are being subsidized by the stimulus bill, but there's one in particular that deserves extra attention because it is emblematic of so much of what's wrong with our government today,

The massive economic stimulus bill moving through Congress is being watched closely by arts groups across the country, including the Massachusetts Cultural Council. If the House version becomes law, the National Endowment for the Arts would get $50 million - and the council's federal funding would soar by nearly 50 percent.

While the NEA money is a minuscule portion of the $819 billion House bill, it has become a lightning rod for some critics, who question whether the dollars for the arts will create many jobs - and who see the money as a symbol of House Democrats trying to lard up the plan with spending wish lists that have been pent up for years.

The criticism has reached such a crescendo that some arts advocates are concerned that the push for the $50 million could backfire, reigniting a debate over the value of taxpayers funding everything from "poetry out loud" events to community theater.

...Such criticism has revived memories of how the GOP-led House in 1997 voted to eliminate the NEA. The agency survived the controversy after a compromise was reached to slash its funding. The agency has made a comeback in recent years and the budget has gradually increased. The proposed additional $50 million - on top of $122 million already set aside in this year's budget for grants - would put the NEA in its strongest financial condition in years.

Folks, we are over 10 trillion dollars in debt. That comes out to almost $35,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. So, if you're married and have a couple of kids, you're responsible for almost $140,000 of our national debt. Do you have $140,000 to spare?

Additionally, we are on track to run TRILLION DOLLAR deficits for the foreseeable future. This stimulus package alone is now over 900 billion dollars, and the interest on it over the next decade will cost us another 300 billion dollars -- if we're lucky.

It's going to get increasingly difficult and expensive to finance our national debt and the amount of interest we owe is going to take up an increasingly large portion of our yearly budget as a nation.

Moreover, it's not only entirely possible that we will have a financial collapse in this country akin to the one that broke the Soviet Union in the next 20-30 years, it's likely that it is going to occur unless we make DRAMATIC changes in the way our country is operating.

.....Which brings us back to this article. We're going to spent 122 million dollars, plus another 50 million dollars on top of that, for art projects. Now, if we had no debt and let's say a 300 or 400 million dollars a year surplus, spending that money might merely produce an eye roll. "Geeze, couldn't we be spending the money on something more important than that? After all, in a rich country like this, it's not as if there is a shortage of people capable of supporting the arts."

However, going into debt, in order to spend 177 million dollars on the arts is sheer, screaming insanity. Seriously, we're going to go more than a billion dollars into debt over the next decade so that a bunch of bureaucrats can dole out money for poetry readings and giant statues of koala bears made out of rat feces and old car parts? What the hell is wrong with this picture?

This sort of spending -- and this only one incredibly wasteful expenditure among thousands -- is a large part of the reason why the American people have so little confidence in their elected officials. It's because despite all the high and mighty rhetoric we get out of Washington, the people in charge are not competent, serious statesmen who have the nation's best interests at heart. Instead, Washington is teeming with frivolous, shallow, bush league, out-of-touch, Mary Antoinette "let them eat cake" fiddle-while-the-whole-country-burns incompetents, who will claim everything's fine right up until the moment when the federal government's checks start bouncing and we can't even get other nations to loan us money any more.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

Now the socialists in the Obama administration are moving to actually micromanage what people can be paid,

Later this morning the White House and Treasury Department will announce new restrictions on executive compensation on financial institutions receiving government funds.

An Obama administration official tells ABC News that under the new rules, companies receiving exceptional assistance from the Department of the Treasury -- such as AIG, for example -- will face executive compensation limits of $500,000 a year.

This new limit comes with one exception: Additional compensation can be allocated in restricted stock that will not vest until taxpayers have been paid back -- the contractual dividends plus interest -- or after specified period according to conditions that consider the degree a company has satisfied its repayment obligations as well as lending and stability goals,among other factors.

Companies that receive more general TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds are permitted to waive the $500,000 plus restricted stock rule if they disclose executive compensation and if requested, allow a non-binding "say on pay" shareholder resolution, allowing investors a non-binding vote on compensation for top executives.

Banks receiving TARP funds will face tougher restrictions than exist now, the Obama official says, including restrictions on golden parachutes and "say on pay" shareholder policies.

It would be easy to point out that different professions received different levels of compensation and that $500,000 really isn't that much for someone who runs a major bank. If you think it is, how does it compare to what, let's say, a professional basketball player or actor makes in a year?

Moreover, while this may be viewed as a "punishment" on the banks, what it's really doing is guaranteeing that they won't be able to attract the top talent in the industry -- you know, exactly the sort of people who could turn those banks around in a hurry.

But, if we're going to play this game -- and say that it's acceptable for the government to set the salary limits for these bankers because they're taking government money, let's consider who else takes government money. How about Congress, the White House, and their staffs? So, here's what I propose: I think a $75,000 limit on what any member of the House, the Senate, the White House and their staffs can receive along with a permanent ban on lobbying activities for all these same people. Hey, if they wanted to make a bundle, they should have gone into the private sector. Certainly, if it's fair for the bankers, it should be fair for Congress and their staffs, right?

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

It seems to have escaped the notice of very few people that the Democratic Party is incessantly calling for taxes on the American people even as some of its highest ranking members have cheated on their taxes. This has produced a bevy of great quotes today,

"Change... It Used to Be We Found Out About the Crooks After They Were In Office." -- Gateway Pundit

"As one leading Democrat put it: "Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter."

That Democrat was then-Sen. Tom Daschle in 1998. The same Tom Daschle, we've since learned, who failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes for perks he received as one of Washington's most relentless influence-peddlers -- that is, until he realized he might receive a job in the Obama administration spending the money most Americans conscientiously send to Washington.

Daschle's hardly alone. The recently confirmed Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, also failed to pay taxes he owed (even though he surely must have known he owed them) until it became politically expedient to pay them. Now he runs the IRS. Take that, suckers." -- Jonah Goldberg

"(Al) Franken, who is still fighting incumbent GOP Sen. Norm Coleman for Minnesota's Senate seat, failed to pay at least $70,000 in taxes to 17 states prior to running for office.

...Franken refused to answer questions and blamed his attorney Allen Chanzis for the error-- much like Geithner blamed the mass-market tax software for his failure to pay $34,000 in taxes.

...There a few other Democrats who have gotten in trouble for their finances lately although the media has been slow to make a narrative out of the obvious big picture story: Democrats Campaign to Raise Taxes, Fail to Pay Their Own." -- Amanda Carpenter

"Daschle Never Forgot to Vote for Higher Taxes." -- Josiah Ryan

"First Tim Geithner. Now Tom Daschle? Who's Obama's next cabinet pick - Wesley Snipes? Dianne Wilkerson?

Not to upset the loyal O-Bots out there, but the last guy from Chicago to have this much income tax trouble was Al Capone. And at last report, he still had an outside shot at getting Commerce secretary.

President Obama pledged to change Washington, and he has. Before Obama, tax cheats used to lose jobs." -- Michael Graham

"Did the Democrats adopt a plank in their party platform last summer re quiring all of their top dogs to have serious personal tax problems?" -- New York Post

"Tom Daschle failed to pay taxes on a quarter-million dollars of income related to the chauffeured Cadillac that ferried him about town for three years. But don't call the guy a limousine liberal.

...Indeed, the senators will almost certainly confirm the former member of their club, barring the discovery of more tax problems. But in doing so, they risk leaving the impression that they operate under the Leona Helmsley rule: Only the little people pay taxes." -- Dana Milbank

But, that's just it, Democrats apparently do think "Only the little people pay taxes." Why else would Obama even want Tim Geithner to run Treasury? Why in the world would the Democrats allow a tax cheat like Charles Rangel to run the Ways and Means Committee, where he's actually writing tax code that the rest of us have to follow? This is not just hypocrisy. This is hypocrisy on the scale of Jim Bakker preaching from the pulpit during the day and groping Jessica Hahn in a seedy hotel room at night.

The Clintonesque idea that "character doesn't matter" has obviously permeated the Democratic Party from top to bottom, which is no surprise when the guy at the top of the party habitually lies, laughs off campaign promises, and knowingly appoints people who don't even follow the laws they're in charge of enforcing. It's sickening really, how openly corrupt the Democratic Party has become now that they have enough votes not to even have to pretend to care about what the American people think.

Update #1: And they're not done yet!

Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection.

The White House said Obama had accepted Killefer's decision and that the 55-year-old executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co., would explain her reasons for pulling out later Tuesday.

When her selection was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia government had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help."

At this point, it's like they're rubbing it in America's face. "Ha! Ha! We're going to tax and spend until our hearts are content, but we're not going to actually pay the taxes we put on you -- and we'll get away with it, too!"

Update #2: "What is the purpose of vetting if the process doesn't disqualify Richardson/Geithner/Daschle/Killefer, etc from being offered the job??" -- Amanda Carpenter

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

One of the biggest mistakes people tend to make is to assume that the party in power is winning because it's full of strategic geniuses. Of course, most of the political strategists in DC are "geniuses" in the same way that the penguin and Mr. Freeze were criminal geniuses in the Batman comic books. They'd come up with some needlessly complicated plot, it would work for about 4-5 pages, then Batman would show up and nearly beat them into a coma. It generally works about the same way in politics, too, if you give it a few years.

But, back to our resident "super villains" -- the Democrats in DC. In a stroke of "political genius," they're now aiming all their big guns at Rush Limbaugh. President Government is mentioning him, the Democrats in Congress are attacking him, liberals are running ads.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!

These attacks achieve three things:

#1) They elevate Rush Limbaugh's status and draw more people to his show to see what all the fuss is about -- which is bad for liberals because Rush is very good at what he does. Just to name one example, I am a conservative today in large part because I started listening to Rush Limbaugh in my college years.

#2) They actually make it less likely that the Fairness Doctrine or some other law targeting talk radio will work. After all, if you publicly target Rush Limbaugh, then try to "hush Rush," it would look particularly sleazy.

#3) It wastes an enormous amount of money and energy on a guy who's merely the governor of Florida -- wait, no, he's not. Is he a senator? Ehr...a Congressman? Hmmmm...So, he doesn't hold any elected office? Maybe it's just me, but I would think that actually targeting Republicans whose seats you can take would make more sense than going after a talk show host who will love the attention.

PS: Since the Democrats are treating Rush like the head man in the Republican Party, maybe he should challenge Barack Obama to a debate. Of course, Limbaugh could destroy a hack like Obama in a debate with his eyes closed, so it will never happen, but it might make for some more great publicity for Rush.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

Question: "Why is the Left afraid of Sarah Palin?" -- Dick_Nixon

Answer: There are multiple reasons why the left hates Sarah Palin.

They despise her for being a "regular Sally" made good -- that's something their politicians pretend to be, but never really are. She didn't go to an Ivy League School. She has an accent -- and it's not a New York accent. She's small town, not big city. She's not rich. She's not a lawyer. She has 5 kids and had a baby with Down's syndrome instead of aborting him. So, much of it is just out and out snotty elitism.

But, all those factors are ultimately small potatoes compared to the two main reasons why the left utterly despises and fears Sarah Palin.

#1) The left thinks they own everybody who isn't a straight, white male. If you're female, Hispanic, black, Asian, gay -- pretty much anything but a straight, white male -- and you're not liberal -- the left wants to see you destroyed because your very existence explodes the myth that people like you can only succeed through liberalism.

In Sarah Palin's case, she is a walking, talking, living refutation of everything the feminist harpies in the Democratic Party tell people. Conservative men, who they claim look down on women, adore her and would love to have her as their President. She's staunchly pro-life. She's not a man-hater who's railing against the patriarchy. In other words, she's the biggest female rock star in politics -- and she's not a liberal; nor is she someone who'd see eye-to-eye with Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, or the nags at NOW on much of anything.

#2) Sarah Palin genuinely excites conservatives like no other politician in America today. There's no other Republican pol who even comes close -- and this is very important -- you will only start to see the GOP make a comeback when the base gets fired up about the Republican Party again.

When the base is excited, they will chip in money, they will volunteer, they will defend the GOP instead of trashing it -- it's the single most important factor key to turning things around and Sarah Palin is obviously capable of pulling it off. That makes her a dire threat to the left, one that they are desperate to smear and destroy.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

Over the last few years, conservatives have spent a surprising amount of time kicking the Republican Party in the behind -- and deservedly so. While the GOP is still going to need to be relentlessly flogged from time to time until the party's morale improves (Ha!), it's nice to see them finally starting to get their act together. I am, of course, referring to the House Republicans voting en masse against Porkulus AKA the Democrats' "Record deficit bill" AKA as the "Bankrupting America bill" AKA stimulus bill,

President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side. ....No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership. It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill. The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.

Setting aside the fact that historically, stimulus bill just don't work, this bill isn't even designed to stimulate the economy. To the contrary, this is an unconscionable transfer of 800 billion dollars of borrowed money to government programs and Democratic special interest groups in order to pay them back for putting Obama in the White House. Decades after the higher-ups at ACORN are hopefully sitting in prison for voter fraud, "global warming" is universally laughed at as a hoax, and Obama is judged to have been one of our most mediocre Presidents, our children will still be trying to pay back the money that was spent on this bill, which is undoubtedly among the single biggest wastes of money in the recorded history of humankind. And happily, not a single Republican in the House voted for this nightmare bill. Unfortunately, I have been hearing behind-the-scenes for the last few days that although the GOP leadership and most of the rank-and-file in the Senate oppose the stimulus bill, they are unlikely to filibuster it. Perhaps seeing the House Republicans stand tall will stiffen their spines a bit, however, and we may see the Senate GOP go to the mat to stop this incredible disaster for the American people. Whatever the case may be, I think the House Republicans deserve a lot of credit. Unlike President Government, they put the American people first and even the most weak kneed moderates in the GOP refused to buckle. So, here's to the House GOP! Let's hope the Senate learns from their example!

PS #1: Although I thought every Republican in a leadership position last year deserved to be flushed after another poor election performance, I have said that I thought John Boehner has shown the potential to be an excellent leader in the House. Yesterday, Boehner, along with Eric Cantor, who has caught a lot of flack lately as well, rose to the challenge and truly led. They deserve a lot of credit for that.

PS #2: From the American Issues Project comes a statistic that shows you how hollow the claim that this is a "stimulus bill" really is,

Additionally, if you're having a hard time wrapping your mind around $825 billion, think of it like this: $825 billion is enough money to give every man, woman and child in the United States $2,700. $825 billion is enough money to give every person in America living in poverty $22,000.

I think the whole idea of creating a "stimulus bill" is highly dubious in the first place, but if we were trying to actually "stimulate" the economy, wouldn't it make much more sense to simply give people money rather than funnel it into chronically useless projects? John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

The legal system we have in this country is absolutely insane. It's geared up to produce lawsuits, is extremely easy to abuse, and the results of going to court are often so completely random and over-the-top, that the results of lawsuits seem to be completely random at times. For example, take the case of Timothy Hoffman,

"A Merritt Island man who was paralyzed when he answered a dare to do a belly flop in the Indian River has been awarded $76.6 million by a Brevard County jury. Timothy D. Hoffman, who was 20 at the time of the accident on Jan. 16, 2003, broke his neck when he sprinted down a dock in Port St. John and slammed headfirst into the bottom of the shallow river. The former construction worker is unable to move his legs or arms but has limited movement in his shoulders, said his attorney, Donald Van Dingenen of Winter Park. Hoffman's mother quit her job to take care of him. He lives in his parents' converted garage, requires assistance to eat and dress, and cannot use the bathroom normally, Van Dingenen said. His father is a construction worker who has to travel out of state to take jobs to support the family during the recession. A jury late Wednesday in Viera decided that Hoffman should receive $1.5 million for past medical expenses, $89,000 for lost earnings, $21.7 million for future medical expenses, $583,000 for loss of future earnings, and a whopping $52.8 million for pain and suffering. The judgment is one of the largest in Brevard history, Van Dingenen said. Whether Hoffman will collect, however, is questionable. The defendant, C&D Dock Works, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May because of the incident, said its former owner, Charles Brunty. A judge in November 2007 ruled that the company was negligent. C&D was the general contractor on the job, to which Hoffman was sent by a temporary labor agency. Brunty said he hasn't worked for months and could not afford a lawyer, so no one defended the company in court. "There was no negligence on my part," Brunty said. There was a rail at the edge of the water, he added, indicating a potential danger. ...The accident happened while Hoffman was waiting for a sea wall to harden. Accounts diverge. In one, Hoffman's boss and co-workers put up money -- either $10 or $20, according to varying versions -- to goad him to enter the chilly water. In another, Hoffman offered to jump into the river in exchange for the money. It is undisputed that he fell about 10 feet into about a foot of water and landed on his head, breaking his neck between his fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae.

What happened to Timothy Hoffman is terrible. However, it's also entirely his own fault and has absolutely nothing to do with the company that was just driven out of business by a 76 million dollar judgment. In fact, any rational person would be left scratching his head trying to figure out what C&D Dock Works is supposed to have done wrong here. After all, it wasn't as if C&D Dock Works was negligent or caused Hoffman to jump off the dock -- it's just that they happened to be the people with the deepest pockets who were tangentially connected to this incident in some fashion. Therefore, they're being looted. There is absolutely nothing just, moral, or even sane about that. However, as long as trial lawyers' unions keep pouring their ill gotten gains into the Democratic Party, this game of lawsuit lottery will continue, and real justice will remain on holiday in this country.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

Most Americans have no idea, none at all, of how much the government has to do with creating economic disasters for our country. For example, take a look at the auto industry. Because the Democratic Party is heavily supported by unions, they've paid them back by writing the laws in such a way that unions are allowed to bend their employers over a barrel and have their way with them at will. No matter how stupid, intractable, lazy, or overpaid union members become or how much money they cost, the Big 3 automakers can't say, "Screw it, you're fired, and we'll just train other people to replace you." Because of the cost of salaries, benefits, and payments to retired union workers that the Big 3 have to pay, they're simply not able to compete with foreign car companies. Do keep in mind that we have foreign companies coming to the United States, paying a fantastic wage to their employees, beating the Big 3's brains in, and managing to make a profit. So, it's not that it can't be done, it's that the cost imposed by unions on the Big 3 are making it impossible for those companies to adapt to the changing marketplace. That's one of the biggest reasons why the Big 3 makes so many big gas guzzlers: because they can sell them for more money and help offset the enormous union costs that have been imposed on them. However, after decades of having the Democrats beat their brains in on the labor side, now Barack Obama has just cut the throats of America's car companies on the other side as well,

Automakers said Monday that they were working toward President Obama's goal of reducing fuel consumption, but rapid imposition of stricter emissions standards could force them to drastically cut production of larger, more profitable vehicles, adding to their financial duress. Mr. Obama ordered the government on Monday to reconsider whether California and other states could regulate vehicle emissions to help control greenhouse gas emissions, a reversal of a position taken by the Bush administration. The announcement came as General Motors and Chrysler are borrowing billions of dollars from the government to avoid bankruptcy, and as Toyota prepares to report its first operating loss in 70 years. Shortly after the president spoke, General Motors said it would cut 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio because of slow sales. The California regulations, if enacted today, "would basically kill the industry," said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, an independent research organization in Ann Arbor, Mich. "It would have a devastating effect on everybody, and not just the domestics." But Mr. Cole said he thought major modifications to the proposed standards were likely and that action was still "a long ways off," giving the carmakers more time to overcome their financial problems and develop the technologies needed to sell a full lineup of compliant vehicles. Right now, carmakers say they would be able to sell only their smallest, most fuel-efficient cars -- models like the Toyota Prius, a hybrid whose sales have fallen sharply since gas prices began dropping last fall -- because once-popular vehicles like pickup trucks made by Ford and G.M. are not efficient enough.

Of course, to Democrats, there is an obvious solution to all of this -- support their union allies by allowing them to loot the Big 3, support their environmental extremist allies with these new emissions standards, and then keep the whole sorry mess afloat with tens of billions in tax payer dollars. Then, nobody but the taxpayers get screwed, but with the help of their allies in the media, they'll figure out some way to blame that on Republicans. Don't laugh -- that's a viable strategy -- at least it will be if Republicans don't smarten up, call them out on what they're doing, and refuse to spend one more dime of the American public's money to prop up the Democrats' union allies. John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.

It goes without saying that most of the world is backing Hamas/Fatah/and the terrorist loving Palestinians who put them in power against Israel.

Setting aside the fact that Israel is a friend to the Western world while many Palestinians would prefer to see us dead, that Israel wants peace and the Palestinians want genocide, and that the Pals are a pathetic, parasitic, backwards, savage, unsympathetic people who wouldn't know what to do with a state if they had it, consider the message that is sent when the world backs these sort of tactics,

Mohammed Shriteh, 30, is an ambulance driver registered with and trained by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.

His first day of work in the al-Quds neighbourhood was January 1, the sixth day of the war. "Mostly the war was not as fast or as chaotic as I expected," Mr Shriteh told the Herald. "We would co-ordinate with the Israelis before we pick up patients, because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us."

Mr Shriteh said the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety.

"After the first week, at night time, there was a call for a house in Jabaliya. I got to the house and there was lots of shooting and explosions all around," he said.

Because of the urgency of the call, Mr Shriteh said there was no time to arrange his movements with the IDF.

"I knew the Israelis were watching me because I could see the red laser beam in the ambulance and on me, on my body," he said.

Getting out of the ambulance and entering the house, he saw there were three Hamas fighters taking cover inside. One half of the building had already been destroyed.

"They were very scared, and very nervous ... They dropped their weapons and ordered me to get them out, to put them in the ambulance and take them away. I refused, because if the IDF sees me doing this I am finished, I cannot pick up any more wounded people.

"And then one of the fighters picked up a gun and held it to my head, to force me. I still refused, and then they allowed me to leave."

Mr Shriteh says Hamas made several attempts to hijack the al-Quds Hospital's fleet of ambulances during the war.

This is not an Abu Ghraib, where a few yahoos got out of hand and the world's biggest over-reaction occurred, it's standard operating procedure for Hamas.

They use ambulances to move their soldiers around. They use aid money given to them for civilians to buy weaponry. They don't wear uniforms. They hide amongst civilians. They deliberately target civilians. They use children as suicide bombers. They openly proclaim they want genocide and have no interest in peace -- ever. In other words, they are far more vile than the defining standard for evil, the Nazis.

Yet, people are rooting for them to win.

There are a number of reasons for that. There's raw anti-Semitism, Muslims who will always root for Muslims over unbelievers, people who hate Israel, people who've been brainwashed by propaganda, those who will always root for the weaker over the stronger, no matter what the situation may be, on and on.

However, do people realize what they are legitimizing by rooting for the Palestinians to win this way? In other words, have they thought about what would happen if the Palestinians were perceived as having "won" somehow because of these tactics?

Surely people are not so foolish as to believe that if these tactics work, they won't be used in other places -- and not just the United States. If the Palestinians can win a "victory" like this, then why shouldn't the "Muslim youths" who are burning cars in France use the same tactics? How about Muslims who want Spain to belong to Islam again? How about Pakistanis who feel, with some justification, discriminated against by Italians?

The world is full of people with grievances and if blowing apart Israelis or Americans is Ok, then why isn't blowing apart Western Europeans? If anything, they have proven to be much more susceptible to being "persuaded" by murderous violence and as we have seen, Muslims across the world, would be sympathetic or at least largely silent about those sort of attacks.

If the Palestinians were to achieve their aims and instituted a Holocaust part 2 against Israel, I suspect there would be quite a bit of cheering not just in Muslim capitols, but all around Western Europe. However, you have to wonder how long the cheering would continue once they realized that they had in effect, sanctioned that very same behavior against their own people in the future.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.