From CongressDaily:

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey dealt a blow to President Obama Monday by rejecting his request for funding in the FY09 supplemental spending bill to shut down the military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center by early next year.

The White House requested $80 million in the FY09 war supplemental to begin moving 240 detainees out of Cuba, but Obey said Monday he stripped the funding from his bill because the administration has not presented a plan to close the facility.

"I personally favor what the administration’s talking about doing, but so far as we can tell there is yet no concrete program for that," Obey said ahead of his panel’s markup of the $94.2 billion supplemental Thursday. "And while I don’t mind defending a concrete program, I’m not much interested in wasting my energy defending a theoretical program."

For dealing with these terrorists, looks like Obama doesn’t have an exit strategy.  That "close Gitmo in 1 year" promise has only 9 months left on it.

Near the beginning of this Wall St. Journal opinion piece, noting how car companies have been "bailed out" for decades, is this breakdown of who will own General Motors once the new restructuring is in place.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) would own 39% of GM. The federal government would own 50%. The creditors will be shafted with just 10%.

Emphasis mine.  And then there’s this, from Merriam-Webster.

Main Entry:

so·cial·ism 

Pronunciation:

\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Function:

noun

Date:

1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Emphasis mine, again.  The two emphases appear to be synonymous.  When speaking of the problems in the auto industry back in November, Rahm Emanuel was quoted.

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

Yeah, I’d say remaking the entire American economy qualifies as a "big thing".  The only way I see this as not becoming a permanent thing is if the experiment fails because GM (and the UAW) still fails.  If not, it’s going to be a wild ride as the government decides to nationalize more and more "for the good of the people".

Health care and any overhauling thereof should not be done lightly.  It should not be rushed through Congress, like, say, the TARP bill was.  This is a big deal.

Well, apparently Obama thinks it’s too big to fail.

President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are poised to trample Republican opposition to his health care bill with a controversial legislative tactic known as reconciliation.

The fast-track process would protect Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system from a potential GOP filibuster and limit the Republicans’ ability to get concessions. It also would give Democrats far more control over the specifics of the health care legislation.

Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but reconciliation would enable Democrats to enact the health care plan with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.

Democrats hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.

Republicans have complained furiously about the prospect of health care reform passing under fast-track rules. But they’re not planning to go down without a fight.

And that’s not the only ill-considered option not being properly considered.

But Democrats aren’t stopping at health care. Obama’s plan to cut private banks and other lending institutions out of the market for student loans would also move on a filibuster-free path.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday that most House and Senate negotiators have resolved most of their differences over a congressional budget blueprint designed to advance Obama’s agenda through Congress. The measure will set the rules on how Congress considers Obama’s agenda for the rest of the year.

Lawmakers are rushing to agree on the budget framework in time to give Obama a victory within his first 100 days in office.

The negotiations have centered on the annual congressional budget resolution, which sets the parameters for the legislation that follows. Congressional votes next week would provide a symbolic victory for Obama’s sweeping agenda to enact a universal health care system, invest in education and clean energy and cut the exploding budget deficit to manageable levels.

Obama marks his 100th day in office on Wednesday.

This is big government run amok.  All Republicans can do at this point is try to get in amendments to ameliorate the damage.  Some Congressman, and many constituents, including those at the recent Tea Parties, complain that far too many legislators didn’t actually read the bill or know what was in it.  And yet they’re going to do it again; make the same mistake twice, very deliberately.

A government big enough to make these sweeping changes in the blink of an eye is big enough to foul it up in a big way.  And there’s a better than even chance it will be fouled up the faster it’s done and the less debate there is.

Shire Network News #161 has been released. The feature interview is with old Shire Network News friend Andrew Ian Dodge who’s moved back to the US and is now a regular correspondent and pundit on Pajamas Media. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

First, Janet Napolitano, Sec. of Homeland Security, decided not to use the term "terrorism", preferring the term "man-caused disaster".  She told the German magazine Der Spiegel that it was nuanced, and she did that to demonstrate a change in policy from being fearful to being prepared.

Ah, so changing the names of things now announce policy decisions, instead of the traditional, old-fashioned, outdated way of explaining changes in policy.  That’s been done before, though.  The phrase "final solution" comes to mind.

Look, a house burned down by arsonist is a "man-caused disaster".  Killing 3000 people, destroying 2 of the largest skyscrapers in the world, and damaging a military complex, is much, much more than that. 

Ms. Napolitano’s use of the English language is a "man-caused disaster".  I wonder what the National Organization for Women thinks of this particular, sexist phrase.  Maybe they’re not so worried about it, assuming that all real disasters would be man-caused.

But it doesn’t stop there.  More recently, the Obama administration signaled a change in policy by no longer using the terms "Long War" or "Global War on Terror".  Instead, the term "Overseas Contingency Operation" should be used.  Catchy, eh?  Just stumbles off the tongue.

Now, there’s still a question as to who exactly in the administration changed this policy.  The memo went to Pentagon staffers, but it said the change came from the Office of Management and Budget, and as we know, the OMB is the source of all national security policy and buzzword creation.  But the OMB said, no, it wasn’t us, just the opinion of some "career civil servant".

Well apparently, that fellow isn’t done yet.  Thus we present you, from the home office in Camillus, NY, the Top 9 other euphemisms proposed by an anonymous career civil-servant

9 – The term "tax cuts" will now be called "Unamerican Activities".

8 – "Paycheck Bonus" shall become "A Congressional Oversight".

7 – "Disagreeing with President Obama" will now be called "Racism".

6 – "Affirmative Action" will be replaced with "Universal Diversity Adjustment".

5 – "Financial Collapse" shall now be known as "Republican Party Evil Master Plan".

4 – "Supporting Israel’s right to exist" will now be called "Racism".

3 – "Militant Islamists" are to be referred to as "Misunderstood Peaceniks".

2 – "Western Civilization" will now be called "Racism".

And the number one euphemism proposed by an anonymous career civil-servant:

What is now "Socialism" will henceforth go by the name "Capitalism".

Y’know, we need a more truthful title for this war.  It’s not a war against a tactic — terrorism — it’s really a war against radical, militant Islam.  But that’s not catchy enough for the short-attention-span audience.  And it might offend radical, militant Islamists.

This reminds me of a little Shakespeare.  From "Romeo and Juliet", Juliet opines about Romeo:

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

I’m sorry, Juliet, but whilst terrorism by any other name would smell as foul, words doth still mean things.  ‘Tis true that Romeo was not thine enemy; simply his name.  Yet presently, our enemies themselves seek to smite us.  I pray thee that we shouldst speak the truth when we speak their name.  Considerest thou this.

No, this isn’t a comparison of the Earth to the Sun.  Take a close look.  (Click on it for the source.)

In 90 days, Obama’s Cabinet has to come up with what amounts to a gnat’s worth of saving.  At this rate, by the time Obama’s first term is up, we might have saved a fly. 

In the meantime, they gleefully swallow the camel.

While there have been recent scattered protests (dubbed “Tea Parties” after a rather famous one in Boston one 235 years ago) against huge government expansion, economic control, bailouts, borrowing and spending, the day of the individual tax deadline, April 15th, was a day of concerted protests.  The “Tax Day Tea Party” was an event held at over 500 locations all across the United States.

In case you’re still wondering what all the fuss was about, a budget deficit graph may help.  (Click on the image for the source.)

Yes, we’ve had budget deficits in the past.  These and the ones to come are in a class all by themselves.  Hence the outrage from all over the country.

From Michigan to South Carolina to California (where the state GOP chair got boos) to Ohio to Kentucky to Atlanta (the largest crowd in the nation, as far as I know, at over 15,000).  This was no localized phenomenon.  This was a national movement.

More below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry

From Mike Lester (click for a larger version):

A federal holiday commemorating the birth of a major religious figure, and we’re not a Christian nation.  No, this does not mean that we all believe the same things, but it does acknowledge our roots.

Some Representatives who voted for the "AIG tax" privately expressed regret after the emotional vote.  It doesn’t look like it’s actually going to pass now.  Looks like we might have dodged that bullet.

Or not.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

(Emphasis mine.)  The bill passed in the Financial Services Committee on a nearly-party-line vote.  I’ll let you guess which party was for it and which against. 

The government is doing what government does best; increase its power.  When there is that much money flowing around DC, it is bound to become the tool used to that end.  Tax cuts and smaller government would reduce that ability, if not that propensity.  Our founding father knew this very well, which is why we started out with a more decentralized form of republic.  Over time, the federal government has indeed become powerful enough to buy into the public sector and start running the show, deciding who can work for your company and, if this passes, for how much.

Remind me again how these very fears were, and are still, labeled "paranoia"?

…when the President of the United States can do this:

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

On Monday, President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government’s behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

General Motors issued a vague statement Sunday night that did not officially confirm Wagoner’s departure.
"We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry. We continue to work closely with members of the Task Force and it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement," the company said.

The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.

Don’t want to call it "socialism"?  Fine, but don’t call it "capitalism", either. 

I will note that this descent into "whatever-it-is-ism" was entered in mutually.  GM begged for money, the government gave it to them, and then government started pulling the strings.  Both sides contributed to this, but just because it was consensual doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. 

This is path taken by most anyone who takes money from the government, whether they be churches, schools, welfare recipients or major automakers.  When you surrender your self-sufficiency, you lose much more in the bargain than originally thought. 

Could companies be bailed out by the government without leaving capitalist, free market principles?  Possibly.  But is this move by the President in line with those principles?  Not really.  An underperforming CEO would be removed by any responsible leader…of the Soviet Union.  We should not be putting our President in the position of being able to do that, and he shouldn’t be accepting that position.

Don’t want to call it "socialism"?  Fine.  What do you want to call it?

Henry Neufeld and Timothy Sandefur (here and here) have both blogged about the NC divorce case that I highlighted yesterday.  Both point to a PDF of the judges ruling in the case, and note that there is more to the ruling on schooling.

Mrs. Mills has joined the Sound Doctrine church, a church that many who have “escaped” from it (that’s the term they, in fact, use) say has anything but sound doctrine.  After reading excerpts of the affidavits in the ruling, I would have to agree.

The concerns that Mr. Mills had to homeschooling included misconceptions that those don’t homeschool typically have about the practice; that it did not expose the Mills children to “the real world” and didn’t give them a “firm foundation for their future social relationships”.  Some of their extra-curricular activities are listed, and it sounds like they could easily find socialization in those.  He also said that it was his understanding was the the homeschooling was temporary.

At the end of the section about schooling, he does mention that some of this included religious training from this Sound Doctrine church, which he was concerned about.  Fair enough, but here is where we find ourselves at a decision that could, contrary to Mr. Neufeld’s and Mr. Sandefur’s thoughts, have widening influence.  The judge finds that it would be in the best interest of the children to pull them out of a schooling situation where, the judge agrees, the children have “thrived academically”.  There can be only two reasons for this based on what’s in the ruling; either it’s the “only temporary” issue or it’s the religious issue.

If it’s because the understanding was that homeschooling was to be only temporary, then perhaps some other education needs to be done to make sure that this isn’t being nixed by the husband because of misconceptions about homeschooling.  The whole “real world socialization” idea has been thoroughly debunked.  And on page 7, point #5, the judge “clearly recognizes the benefits of home school”.  So this appears not to be the main reason.

Which brings us to the religious issue.  After conceding the benefits of homeschooling, the judge, in the same point, then agrees to Mr. Mills’ request to “re-enroll the children back into the public school system and expose them and challenge them to more than just Venessa Mills’ viewpoint.”  This is where it gets dicey.

Others cited in the ruling consider the Sound Doctrine church to be a “cult”, and I’m not in a position to disagree with them.  The behavior of Mrs. Mills tends to back up their assertions.  However, if this ruling is made specifically to expose the children to other viewpoints, than any homeschooler of any religion or philosophy could have their choice annulled by a court for that reason, cult or not.  (I imagine, indeed, a judge that took children out of an atheist homeschooling situation to “challenge” that viewpoint would find all sorts of “friend of the court” briefs from the ACLU.)  The mother could lose custody of the children based on her religious beliefs and how those beliefs translate into abuse, but, while even that is a difficult thing for a court to decide, that is not, as I read it, the reason that the children are being sent to public school.

There’s that poem that has lines “First they came for ___, and I did not speak up because I wasn’t a ___.”  It’s been used and misused over the years, but I think it applies here.  I don’t think we can see this ruling and not feel some concern over perhaps government coming for Christians or Jews, or whatever other religion that a judge thinks needs to be “challenged”, on the say-so of an aggrieved spouse.  Whether the grievance is valid or not, or whether the religion is a cult or not, it should be cause for concern.