Wednesday, 01 April 2009
THE SIBELIUS TAX ISSUE
Is Governor Jean Sibelius of Kansas a tax cheat?
That's a fair question because when Ms. Sibelius became the proposed
Secretary of Health & Human Services, she suddenly determined
that she had to pay about $7,000 in back taxes. Here is the story, via
excerpts from an
Associated Press Article:
GOP senator: Tax errors shouldn't bar HHS
WASHINGTON A $7,000 tax mistake shouldn't
disqualify Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius from serving as the nation's top
health official, a key Republican senator said Wednesday. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa told home state reporters in a conference call
that he felt Sebelius made "a good-faith effort" to pay her taxes correctly in
the first place, and errors discovered in a recent review should not count
Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said he is
reserving judgment on Sebelius until confirmation hearings. But taxes won't be
the deciding factor for him. He
suggested he's more concerned with Sebelius' views on Medicare and Medicaid, and
how her support for abortion rights might influence policies at the Health and Human Services
...Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax
returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional
errors" the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration
Sebelius said the changes involved charitable contributions, the sale of
a home and business expenses. In a letter to senators Tuesday, she said she
filed the amended returns as soon as the errors were discovered by an accountant
she hired to scrub her taxes in preparation for her confirmation
Several Obama administration nominees have run
into tax troubles, notably the president's first pick for HHS secretary, former
Senate Democratic leader Tom
Daschle. He withdrew from consideration while apologizing for failing to
pay $140,000 in taxes and interest.
Technically, I suppose the answer is yes, she is a "tax cheat". But I
have to agree with Senator Grassley. The amount is not a lot and it does
not appear that the delinquency was intentional.
So while I am no fan of Ms. Sebelius, I don't see this as
a reasonable basis to deny her appointment. Let it go.
That said, however, doesn't it seem, more and more, that tax delinquency
is is some kind of job requirement for the Obama
A RECONCILIATION MESSAGE FROM THE "MODERATE TALIBAN"
Here, courtesy of the following excerpts from a
Reuters article , is what the taliban thinks of President Obama's
KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban insurgents reject a
U.S. offer of honorable reconciliation, a top spokesman said on Wednesday,
calling it a lunatic idea and saying the only way to end the war was to
withdraw foreign troops. ...
This matter was also raised in the past, said
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, referring to comments last month by
Obama, who spoke of reaching out to moderate Taliban.
have to go and find the moderate Taliban, their leader and speak to them. This
is a lunatic idea, Mujahid said by telephone from an unknown location.
NATO commanders admit that mainly British, Canadian and Dutch troops are
locked in a stalemate in the south, unable to stop insurgent roadside and
suicide bomb attacks without the active support of the population, while
Taliban militants are incapable of overcoming Western troops in head-on
The premise that there is a "moderate taliban" out there that Mr. Obama can
reconcile with is not simply idiotic. That wouldn't do it justice.
It is over-the-top, hall-of-fame quality idiotic.
If a Republican President ever floated something as utterly devoid of common
sense, logic and sanity itself as the "moderate taliban", mainstream
media would have flayed the skin off of him.
But this is Saint Barack. So there is barely a peep.
Let's also note that NATO is having every bit as much trouble with the
taliban as US troops have had. And it is for exactly the same reason - i.e
that the Afghanistan/Pakistan region is a major breeding ground for
taliban activity and it has the support of too much of the population to be
In other words, those years-long attacks on President Bush for not just
wiping the taliban out completely were 100% phony - as anyone with even the
slightest combination of intelligence and honesty should have known.
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama - an unqualified President in the
midst of on-the-job training - has now started his taliban learning
curve. I doubt that he will enjoy it very much.
IMMIGRATION LAW, OBAMA-STYLE
This outrage comes to us from the Associated Press, via Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com, whose
comments are included:
April 1st, 2009
From a relieved Associated Press:
Obamas aunts immigration case set for
By DENISE LAVOIE
BOSTON (AP) President Barack Obamas
aunt will remain in the United States until at least next year as she awaits a
chance to make her case before an immigration judge in her bid for asylum from
her native Kenya.
Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUH-nee awn-YAHN-goh) had
an initial appearance in U.S. Immigration Court in Boston on Wednesday. At the
brief hearing, a judge set her case to be heard Feb. 4, 2010.
Onyango wore a curly red wig to
the hearing and declined to comment to reporters as she was led away
from court by her attorneys and police from the Federal Protective Service, a
component of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for security
at federal buildings.
Onyango, 56, first applied for asylum in 2002,
but her request was rejected and she was ordered deported in 2004. She did not
leave the country and continued to live in public housing in
Wongs spokesman, Mike Rogers,
said the next hearing date was set for nearly a year later because Judge
Leonard Shapiros calendar is so booked
The hearing next February is known as an
"individual hearing," or merits hearing, when Onyango will be given the
opportunity to present her reasons for seeking asylum. The Department of
Homeland Security acts as a prosecutor at such hearings. The judge will then
decide if Onyango will be allowed to stay in the United States or whether she
will be deported.
Obama has said he did not know his aunt was
living here illegally and believes laws covering the situation should be
This is how the rule of law is destroyed in a
nation. One outrage of justice at a time.
Why should it take more than five years to deport
someone who is clearly in this country illegally?
And, who on top of that, is illegally receiving
public housing, free healthcare and other welfare benefits?
Try to imagine the howls of outrage if any laws
were similarly ignored for the relative of a Republican dog catcher, let alone a
But our watchdog media will not say boo about
And eventually, some quiet Saturday morning, we
will learn from the back pages of the local newspaper that a way has been found
to allow Ms. Onyango to stay in this country so that she can continue to leach
off of its taxpayers.
By the way, it should be noted that there is not
one single photograph of Ms. Onyango on the wire services. (Even though her
wearing a red wig in itself should be news worthy.)
As far as our watchdog media is concerned, this
story does not really exist.
What can you say? All deference to the king...and his illegal
BONUSES FOR EMPLOYEES OF A FEDERAL BAIL-OUT ENTERPRISE
Are you outraged that there is an
enterprise which lost its shirt last year, requires billions and billions of federal taxpayers' bail-out
money to continue functioning --- but gave its employees bonuses, as if it
had turned a profit?
Before you start cursing AIG, I suggest you read the following excerpt from a story in
yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It should be of considerable interest to
MARCH 31, 2009, 11:20 P.M. ET
I don't know, of course, but I would think that the absentee ballots in
question are mostly a mixture of military, and people who travel abroad
(thus have the means to do so). If this is true, it's a very good bet that
Jim Tedisco will more than overcome that 65 vote deficit and win the
seat. We'll find out for sure in the next couple of weeks.
Regardless of who wins, however, it seems very clear that, if this is a
test of the Obama magic, his wand must have been on the
Scott Murphy, like Ms. Gillibrand, positioned himself as a conservative
Democrat. From what I read, he ran a good campaign, and had the benefit of
massive union help in getting out the vote on election day. Presumably he
should have won with room to spare.
The fact that a) he didn't and b) in fact, he may well have lost
altogether? Make of it what you will.