Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

A little housekeeping

2010-08-11T08:01:00.000-07:00

Regular readers know that my lovely wife and I were constant and consistent bloggers. When she finished her undergrad degree and moved onto law school, the blogging fell into my lap to handle. I did a pretty good job on my own. (I was blogging before she was, so it really wasn't that difficult to do solo blogging again.) But law school is done for her, and she took the Bar Exam last month. I'm crossing my fingers she passed it first time through.

So what does this have to do with the site? Well, let's just say that the blogging will be infrequent from this point forward. I'm working on a personal project, a novel specifically. The novel idea has been rattling around my cob-web-filled skull for the last twenty years, and I made a promise to myself this year to get on the stick and write it finally. As of today I'm just over 220 pages into it, and I'm shooting for between 500 and 600 pages, and hopefully about 100,000 to 200,000 words.

Thus far it's been fun. A ton of research has gone into this novel. I have easily done as much research for this book as I have done as a blogger. The difference comes in what exactly is being researched. My novel is a thriller a la Vince Flynn and Daniel Silva, so there's research on firearms, countries, certain intelligence agencies and how they work, and Washington, DC. (The novel takes place in DC.) So, if everything goes as planned, I'm hoping to be shopping this around to publishing houses by summer of 2011. Once the rough draft is finished, then it's time for some proof-reading, polishing, and fine-tuning. (There are also considerable hoops I've got to jump through to prepare the manuscript for a publishing house.)

But this is why the blogging here has dropped significantly in the last few weeks. I just don't have the time to do it day-in and day-out while I'm working on this. I will say that if I do have a few minutes to post something up, it'll be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday. Those are the days that I actually have extra time, usually late mornings, when I'm not at work or working on the novel.

My apologies to our regular readers, but I decided it was time to get this done. Twenty years is long enough to put this off, and I'm not getting any younger.

Publius II

NRO editors on the Ground Zero mosque

2010-08-04T08:53:00.002-07:00

When this was first presented, I thought it was a political hoax, or a joke cooked up by some nutter in New York. But it's a reality, and it's a reality we're 100% opposed to. We're not opposed to a religion being allowed to build a church, but Ground Zero is hallowed ground. We wouldn't support ANY religion putting up a church at Ground Zero. We would stand against any sort of inappropriate display or building on any ground in America that is considered hallowed. (After all, we believe the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, but there's no way in Hell we'd support any sort of display at the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii "commemorating" that brain-dead decision. We also wouldn't support the Ku Klux Klan erecting any sort of memorial at Gettysburg.)

Point being, there's a level of respect that is due at places like Ground Zero. Over at National Review, the editors have penned a piece on this issue:

The story of the proposed mosque at the site of the World Trade Center has been thoroughly misrepresented, as have the parties behind the project. They present themselves as ambassadors of moderate Islam. Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, says the project aims to put the Muslim community “at the front and center to start the healing.”

Ms. Khan knows better, because she is also Mrs. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the wife of the main Islamic cleric behind the project. Rauf is no moderate. He presents himself as a peacemaking Islamic Gandhi, but he is in fact an apologist for the terrorist outfit Hamas, which he refuses even to identify as a terrorist organization. Nor is Rauf exactly full-throated in his rejection of terrorism, offering only this: “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.” While he cannot quite bring himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

As National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy has documented, Rauf’s book, published in the West as What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America, had a significantly different title abroad: A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. “Dawa” means Islamic proselytizing, a process that ends in the imposition of sharia. The book was published abroad with the assistance of the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which are two appendages of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization behind much of the world’s murderous Islamic terrorism. The Islamic Society of North America was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism case. The co-founder and president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Awani, was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami al-Arian terrorism case.

This dispute has been presented as a question of whether an Islamic center and mosque should be built in proximity to the scene of the worst act of Islamic terrorism — and the worst act of political violence — ever committed on U.S. soil. But at least as germane to the dispute is the question of whether these particular parties ought to be doing so. The fact that an apologist for terrorists and an associate of terrorist-allied organizations is proceeding with this provocation is indecent. We have thousands of mosques in the United States, and who knows how many Islamic cultural centers in New York City. We do not need this one, in this place, built by these people. We’re all stocked up on Hamas apologists, thanks very much.

The libertarians among us are wrong to take a blasé attitude toward this, asking, “If their permit applications are in order, why not?” Here is why not: because this is not just a zoning dispute. The World Trade Center is, in effect, the gravesite of 3,000 Americans who died at the hands of Islamist radicals, and to build a mosque on this site — particularly a mosque with Muslim Brotherhood connections — would be extraordinarily unseemly. We will not appeal to the official powers to use the machinery of government to stop this project. We appeal, instead, to the sense of decency of the American Muslim community, and to its patriotism.

Beyond that, Americans should make their displeasure with this project felt economically and socially: No contractor, construction company, or building-trades union that accepts a dime of the Cordoba Initiative’s money should be given a free pass—nobody who sells them so much as a nail, or a hammer to drive it in with. This is an occasion for boycotts and vigorous protests — and, above all, for bringing down a well-deserved shower of shame upon those involved with this project, and on those politicians who have meekly gone along with it. It is an indecent proposal and an intentional provocation.

That is our overall gripe. The fact that they want it so close to Ground Zero is an affront to this nation, and every American should lodge their formal complaints to the companies involved in its construction. We don't support boycotts because they generally don't work. But in this instance we do support a boycott, including a boycott of New York City. The asininity involved in this decision is astronomical. If those on the Landmark Commission are elected, we hope New York residents boot them from office. If they're appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, then Bloomberg should be ousted. (He is for the mosque being built; such is the life of a disrespectful ass. Giuliani would never have allowed this mosque to go through.)

The fact that this mosque's construction will be funded by Muslim Brotherhood blood money is sickening. This is how the leaders of Islam now are acting. The moderates don't have a voice in Islam. They're shunned, or worse, silenced. The radicals are the ones in charge now, and while they can offer empty platitudes about how this will help "heal the wounds," it's a lie. They will be celebrating their mosque's construction just two short blocks from the most sanctified, honored ground in the entire nation. And readers will kindly recall that this is not the first time hallowed ground has been tainted. The United 93 memorial in Shanksville, PA drew significant ire and controversy with its shape (a red crescent) and alignment (in direct alignment with Mecca).

The terrorist apologists will stop at nothing when it comes to infiltrating this name, and every time we give in, it's a victory for them. For the last time, repeat after me: Lan Astalem -- I will not submit! Enough is enough. We live in a nation where we are being ruled by the minority, and their leadership (if you could call it that) is extremely detrimental to this great republic. It's time to get rid of the politically-correct @$$holes, and take this nation -- it's identity, it's ideals, and it's values -- back from these people who seem intent on wrecking everything good about America. The Landmark Commission should be ashamed for clearing the way for this Muslim front group to erect a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

This will not help "heal" squat. It'll only serve to continue the animosity towards a group of people who can't seem to figure out how to drag their 7th Century, anachronistic asses into the 21st Century.

Publius II

House outlook for midterms: Pelosi would be smart to worry

2010-08-03T12:09:00.000-07:00

The midterm elections are less than 100 days away, but in an interview on This Week with Christiane Amanpour Nancy Pelosi says she's not nervous about the upcoming election:

In an exclusive interview on "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., struck a confident tone on the electoral prospects for Democrats this November, despite predictions by many, including at least one top White House official, that Democrats could lose control of the House.

"I'm not nervous at all," Pelosi said. "I never take anything for granted. And our agenda now is ... we're not going back to the failed policies of the Bush administration. We're going forward," she said.

"So what does it make you feel then, when the president's own spokesman said that you might lose the majority?" Amanpour asked her.

"With all due respect," Pelosi shot back, "I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about what the president's employees say about one thing or another."

She's not nervous, but many of her colleagues are. Captain Ed points to recent pieces written on The Rothenberg Political Report. For example, there's this assessment written by Mr. Rothenberg:

Democrats now hold a 39-seat edge in the House. Yet the playing field continues to expand: The Rothenberg Political Report currently lists 88 seats as “in play.” Seventy-six of those seats currently are held by Democrats.

Many of the same places that helped build the president’s winning coalition in his race against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — states such as Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and Pennsylvania — could be the places where Republicans rack up the gains they need to take back the House.

In many of those districts, the Obama agenda has been widely unpopular. House members are left defending votes on items including the stimulus, bailouts, health care and cap-and-trade that have grown more unpopular with the passage of time.

It means that the president and his agenda will very much be on the ballot — while the president himself won’t be the best position to help Democrats play defense.

I said in January of last year that if the Democrats led as moderates, and kept their hard-Left ideology in check, they'd be successful come the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 election. I warned that if it wasn't kept in check, the people of America would do their best to bounce the problems from office. And no one can deny that the Democrats and their agenda is a problem. It's a serious one because they haven't addressed the problems facing the nation. They've exacerbated the recession, spent the nation into trillions of dollars in debt, and they've engaged in thuggish tactics that would've made Al Capone jealous.

Let’s be clear about where we all would be if unemployment were actually at 4 percent right now.

Most of the hand-wringing about jobs and the economy would be gone, stronger employment numbers would mean a more vibrant economy (which almost certainly would mean higher federal and state revenues and lower deficits) and polling undoubtedly would show the president with better numbers, Congress with a higher approval rating and the Democratic Party more popular than it is now. Because of that, the huge enthusiasm gap that now exists and is likely to fuel GOP gains in November would be much smaller or nonexistent. …

Actions, indeed, do have consequences. In this case, the combination of an aggressive Democratic agenda, a weak jobs recovery and a large deficit has created a political environment very different from the one 18 months ago, when Democrats won a special election in New York’s open 20th district by demonizing Republicans for waffling on, then opposing, Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

It’s very difficult to imagine Republican gains in the House of fewer than two dozen seats, and my own newsletter, after going race by race, recently placed likely GOP gains in the range of 28 to 33 seats, if not higher.

The nation has been waiting to see if the adults will step forward and deal with the economic problems we're facing, but they haven't. The children are still behind the wheel of dad's car with an open bottle of Jack Daniels held between their knees. The unemployment numbers haven't eased, and it's taken shady practices to make people think that the employment situation is getting better. (That was revealed when temporary Census workers reported being hired, then laid off, then rehired again, skewing the numbers for a couple of months leading up to summer.) The Democrats haven't taken care of our economic woes.

Instead of spending us into oblivion, the Democrats could have easily written themselves a ticket to success by lowering tax rates across the board, and suspending all non-essential government spending. Hell, if they really wanted to turn the economy around in record time, that would help, but a tax holiday for small businesses for a year would have greatly improved the economic situation in America.

But the Democrats couldn't set aside their ideology long enough to do what was right. As was revealed back in February of last year, the Democrats had a forty year wish-list that they wanted to implement immediately. Their own selfish desires for power and control have brought reality to their doorstep, and a lot of them are going to lose their jobs this fall. The House appears to be a lock, with the GOP taking as many as forty seats. The Senate isn't as rock solid, but the GOP will make some significant gains there.

And what are the Democrats going to do after the bloodbath in November? The rumors on Capitol Hill is that in their lame duck session, they're going to do their damnedest to ram through everything they couldn't get passed earlier such as cap and trade and card check. The small coalition of Blue Dogs in the House begging the president to back an initiative to extend President Bush's tax cuts beyond 31 December of this year lack the clout to push for the move. Pelosi has no desire to extend those tax cuts. The quote above in her interview proves it. She's blaming Bush, just like Barry does.

The simple fact is that the Democrats are obviously too stupid to figure out where they went wrong, and they're too bloody arrogant to admit they were wrong. Mr. Rothenberg finishes up with more wisdom, and reasoned analysis, than the Democrats (especially Nancy Pelosi) will ever come up with:

The House surely is at great risk, and anyone who asserts that Democrats are certain to maintain their majority after November is simply not worth listening to on the subject. The trajectory of this election cycle is clear. But don’t delude yourself. It didn’t have to be this way.

Hammer. Nail. Head. 'Nuff said.

Publius II

Dennis Prager on why the Left hates conservatives

2010-07-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

I've often considered writing such a piece myself, but every time I begin it, I always notice that I just don't quite put it the right way. I know the Left despises conservatives for a whole host of reasons but Dennis Prager puts it succinctly today at National Review. (And before any liberal readers go off half-cocked on this column please remember that Mr. Prager always speaks in generalities. Of course not every liberal shares this same hatred of conservatives, but the vast majority do.):

Of all the recent revelations to come out of JournoList, an e-mail list consisting of about 400 liberal/left journalists, perhaps the most telling is the depth of their hatred for conservatives. That these journalists would consult with one another in order to protect candidate and then President Obama and in order to hurt Republicans is unfortunate and ugly. What is jolting is the hatred of conservatives on display, as exemplified by the e-mail from a public-radio reporter expressing her wish to personally see Rush Limbaugh die a painful death — and the apparent absence of any objection from her fellow liberal journalists.

Every one of us on the right has seen this hatred. I am not referring to leftist bloggers or to anonymous comments by angry leftists on conservative blogs — such things exist on the right as well — but to mainstream, elite liberal journalists. There is simply nothing analogous among elite conservative journalists. Yes, nearly all conservatives believe that the Left is leading America to ruin. But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the Left’s hatred of conservative individuals. Would mainstream conservative journalists e-mail one another wishes that they could be present while Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Michael Moore died slowly and painfully of a heart attack?

From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people of the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them. The question is, why?

Here are three possible answers.

First, the Left thinks the Right is evil. Granting the exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad. Examples are innumerable. Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic party, said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, Democrats don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.” Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), among many similar comments, said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.” ...

Second, when you don’t confront real evil, you hate those who do. You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or out of fear that the one who confronted the bully will provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the Left expressed far more hatred for Ronald Reagan than for Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. When Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world was enraged . . . at Reagan. ...

Third, the Left’s utopian vision is prevented only by the Right.

From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, paraphrasing his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Some men see things as they are and say, Why? I dream things that never were and say, Why not?” That exemplifies left-wing idealism — imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?

This hatred will only increase if the Left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of government are in any way threatened in the forthcoming elections. The problem is that this hatred does not decrease when the Left is in power.

Hatred of conservatives is so much a part of the Left that the day the Left stops hating conservatives will mark the beginning of the end of the Left as we know it.

Mr. Prager is more correct than people will give him credit for. The simple fact of the matter is that we conservatives utilize logic, intellect, common sense, and a real-world understanding to motivate our ideology. Whereas the Left will claim we want to see people starve when we stand in opposition to an increase in welfare or jobless benefits, we argue that it would be more beneficial to help employ those people, and ease their tax burdens. Give a tax break to small businesses (America's bread-and-butter when it comes to employment), and that employer can hire more workers, employing more people, and instilling personal responsibility. But the Left doesn't like that idea so they throw up an emotional straw man filled with the idea that people would rather have a hand-out than work an honest day's work for an honest day's wage. On this point there is reinforcement.

In his autobiography "An American Life" Ronald Reagan wrote about the work he did helping unemployed people during the Great Depression. He noted that when he found the people he was helping work, they stood a little taller, felt pride in doing work. But the person who oversaw what he was doing scolded him to stop helping these people. Just give them their unemployment check, and send them on their way. Reagan knew then as we do now that a man takes pride in the work he does, takes pride in being able to provide for his family. A man who is given a hand-out feels no pride. In fact, as my grandfather used to tell me "That which is given has no value." He was right.

The Left thrives on emotion. It is an adolescent emotion that has morphed into an ideology that is a detriment to any free society. They believe in a larger, more intrusive government. They abhor the idea of personal responsibility. When it comes to defense, they're more apt to point the finger at America and blame it for the ills and gripes of others.

The very worst of liberalism is embodied in the current president. Barry has exhibited every pratfall of liberalism to the point where the public is genuinely outraged at much of what he has done, and they abhor him for his general attitude towards this nation. He takes no pride in the fact that America is a "shining city on a hill;" an embodiment of freedom and democracy that the world always looks to. And his cronies in Congress are no better. Radical liberals like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the cause of the lack of faith in Congress amongst the voting populace. Captain Ed reported on 8 July that congressional approval had hit a first time low of 95 -- the first time Congress's approval dropped to single digits. Who controls Congress? The Left does.

When the Left gets their way, the people aren't pleased. America is a center-right nation, not a hard Left nation. Therein lies the problem for liberals this coming November. The voting public is going to throw these bums out in the hopes that the GOP can do better. I don't know if that'll work, but right now anything is better than handing the Left the car keys after a year and a half of binge drinking. Make no mistake, they're drunk on power, and it's already evident in the rhetoric coming out of them now. The Left has said after they lose in November, before the GOP takes back the reins of power, that their lame-duck session is going to be one jam-packed with everything they couldn't get passed in the last 18 months. Rather than listen to the people, they're content to move forward -- full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, and damn the nation for retaliating against them.

Elections have consequences, and the people would be better suited to remember that before leaping off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

Publius II

JournoList Part Two -- Gag FOX News, and bias against the Tea Party movement

2010-07-21T09:54:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Jonathan Strong revealed the JournoList discussion of how the media insulated Barry from the Jeremiah Wright controversy. I know I was snarky when I said that he was pointing out the obvious, but what was interesting about his piece was how quickly the media circled the wagons in an orchestrated effort to protect their candidate of choice. Today, Mr. Strong points out that many big names in the media debated over whether or not the government should take control of FOX News:

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Now, is anyone surprised by this discussion, open and candid, amongst journalists? It shouldn't. the alphabet networks and the mainstream news industry have been attacking FOX News since it first took to the cable airwaves. And it has consistently decimated the other cable news networks. At this point in time, MSNBC resembles Air America in its death throes. Their commentators are partisan jokes that no one with a brain takes seriously, and their bias is so evident that it's laughable to think these people still claim to be unbiased news observers, commentators, and reporters.

As for pulling FOX's license, I'm not too sure that would be possible because, as Captain Ed points out in his piece on this topic today FOX may not have an FCC license:

I’m actually unclear on whether Fox News has an FCC license, since it uses satellite transmission rather than actual broadcast through local affiliates. Usually, it’s the affiliates themselves that have to get the licenses, not the network whose content they broadcast, and Fox News doesn’t use traditional TV stations for its content. But that’s a more esoteric point. The point is that Zasloff has no trouble letting government determine whether a news organization should be allowed to publish, apparently based on nothing more than its discomfort with the news itself. Not only does this sound as though Zasloff needs a refresher course on Constitutional law and free speech, it also sounds like an endorsement for fascism, in which governments pick and choose which businesses are allowed to exist based on their level of cooperation with the government.

And speaking of fascism, early on in Mr. Strong's piece he cites Bloomberg's Ryan Donmoyer and his illiteracy when it comes to history when comparing events to the Tea Party movement:

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Quick history lesson for Mr. Donmoyer: The Brownshirts were the SA, the precursor to the SS, and were so named because of their uniform. Once the SS was established, it quickly pushed the SA (Brownshirts) out of power. And the point behind their creation was to sweep national socialists into power under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The Tea Party movement is comprised of everyday, average America citizens that aren't pleased with the direction the federal government is going in, they're not happy with the fact their elected representatives aren't listening to them, and they're appalled at the intense and swift growth of government intervention in their lives.

The Tea Party movement wasn't established to commit a coup by election, as the Nazis had been. The movement was established to send a message to Washington, DC to knock off their crap, and listen to the people, and the movement promised repercussions in the midterms if their voice wasn't heeded. And if you've been watching the polls, they're telling a story of a political bloodbath in November. Do I believe the prognostications that are claiming this will be a sweeping victory for the GOP? I take such predictions with a grain of salt.

Is there a chance that the GOP could take the House back? Yes, a very good one, and even Democrats are admitting it. The House is divided with 257 seats controlled by Democrats and 178 seats controlled by the Republicans. The GOP only needs 39 seats to take the majority. So it is a distinct possibility the GOP could retake the House. The Senate is separated by nine votes, and it could also be taken from the Democrats. When the party in charge is the focus of the voter's ire, the voters will take their frustration out on that party. The Tea Party is hardly a putsch, and it's offensive that a journalist would even make such an equivocation.

Publius II

New Quinnipiac numbers; things trending down for Barry

2010-07-21T08:18:00.001-07:00

And the hits just keep on coming, folks. Quinnipiac has released some interesting numbers today that show Barry, if he runs in 2012, could very well lose to any Republican, named or otherwise:

A year after President Barack Obama's political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 - 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 48 - 43 percent approval for Obama in a May 26 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 57 - 33 percent approval last July, just before the political firestorm created by opposition to his health care plan galvanized political opponents and turned independent voters against him.

In this latest survey of more than 2,000 voters, independent voters disapprove of Obama 52 - 38 percent and say 37 - 27 percent they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.

American voters also say 48 - 40 percent Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.

Anti-incumbent sentiment slams both parties as voters disapprove 59 - 31 percent of the job Democrats are doing, and disapprove 59 - 29 percent of Republicans in Congress. But voters say 43 - 38 percent they would vote for a Republican in a generic Congressional race.

American voters say 42 - 32 percent that Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, similar to the 43 - 30 percent who felt that way in January of 2010.

"It was a year ago, during the summer of 2009 that America's love affair with President Barack Obama began to wane. In July of 2009, the President had a 57 - 33 percent approval rating. Today, his support among Democrats remains strong, but the disillusionment among independent voters, who dropped from 52 - 37 percent approval to 52 - 38 percent disapproval in the last 12 months, is what leads to his weakness overall when voters start thinking about 2012," said Peter A. Brown., assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"In politics a month is a lifetime and we have 28 months until November of 2012. But politicians with re-elect numbers at 40 percent bear watching," Brown added. ...

"The Republican tilt of the electorate little more than 100 days before the 2010 election is evident, but not overwhelming. Republicans hold a 43 - 38 percent lead on the 'generic ballot,' compared to a 42 - 34 percent Democratic lead in July 2009," said Brown. "What a difference a year makes."

Voter approval of the President's handling of some of the nation's problems shows:

-- Disapprove 56 - 39 percent of his handling of the economy;

-- Disapprove 46 - 43 percent of his handling of foreign policy;

-- Disapprove 51 - 41 percent of his handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill;

-- Disapprove 58 - 30 percent of his handling of illegal immigration;

-- Approve 46 - 34 percent of his nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

"The massive disapproval of his handling of illegal immigration stems from voter opposition to his decision to have the government ask the federal courts to throw out the Arizona law. They say 60 - 28 percent the lawsuit is a bad idea," said Brown.

Bear in mind that we still have just over two years before 2012, but the fact remains that Barry has dropped like a rock the longer he has been in office. The "hope" and "change" from 2008 is gone, the honeymoon is over, and he's honked off the number one constituency that put him over the top. I know there are prognosticators that claim it was minorities that put him over the top, but they're wrong. The Independent voter was the key to the whole election, and after the health care debacle back in March, where an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want to see it passed after they learned what it entailed, the Independents walked away from Barry and haven't looked back since.

This is why Quinnipiac is focused on the Independent's disillusionment with him. They bought his crap, hook, line, and sinker. A year after Barry was inaugurated we're sick of hearing from these people about how they were duped. Know why we're sick of hearing this whining and complaining?

BECAUSE WE BLOODY WELL TOLD YOU WHO THIS MAN WAS, WHAT HE WAS ABOUT, AND THE FACT THAT HE HAD ZERO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!!

This schmuck hasn't even run a bloody lemonade stand, and we listened to so many people during the election speak of their hopes and dreams for this man. Well, guess what? You were played like a harp from Hell. The Pied Piper strutted on in from Chicago, and the rats lined up to follow him. Only they look less like rats and more like lemmings running right off of a cliff.

Of course, thanks to the "One-Party Media" covering Barry's @$$ in 2008 these voters were "misinformed" or not privy to what we knew. I mean, let's face facts folks: Unless you spend a decent amount of time on the Internet each day, or unless you listen to talk radio throughout your day, you aren't going to get the full story on ANY issue from today's media outlets if the journalists don't want you to know about it. The media quashed any and all stories regarding Jeremiah Wright in 2008, and George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson were rebuked by their fellow journalists for even broaching the subject with Barry. (In their colleague's eyes, it was beyond the pale to even bring it up in a presidential debate.)

Chances are you won't hear too much about this poll today, and you sure as Hell won't see it anywhere in the media. 2010 is on everyone's mind right now, and it should be. The 2012 race won't even begin to heat up until after the midterms as GOP contenders jockey for position and file their paperwork. Our focus now should be in getting rid of as many Democrats in Congress as possible in an attempt to take back the Congress. I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat argument over which House of Congress is more important to retake. They both have their respective power, and the necessity to wrestle control away from the Democrats is imperative this year. Furthermore, the Republicans need to promise, and carry through on the promise, to rollback as much of the president's radical agenda as they can starting with Obamacare. In fact, the Republicans need to campaign on easing the tax burden on the American worker and on American companies to try and bring us out of this recession. Additionally they need to stand in firm, lock-step opposition to raising the national deficit anymore than it already is until this recession is over.

But regardless of who runs in 2012, we seriously don't see a scenario where Barry is anything more than a Jimmy Carter redux, in and out in four years.

Publius II

JournoList scandal: Pointing out the obvious

2010-07-20T11:57:00.001-07:00

For those that don't know what JournoList is, it's a Google Groups forum for the media to discuss politics and current events. It was Mickey Kaus that broke the story behind JournoList, and put up on his blog a public discussion on the site. The public got an inside look at the media and their inherent liberal bias. It created a firestorm that came and went within a week or two. Today, Jonathan Strong from the Daily Caller exposes just part of the lengths the media went through to protect their golden child, Barry, in the 2008 primaries and the general election: (HT to Glenn Reynolds)

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

As Professor Reynolds urges, read it all. It's three pages long, and it's eye-opening to those who still think the media is an unbiased observer/reporter of the news of the day. They're not, folks. They haven't been ever since the day that Walter Duranty whitewashed Stalin's atrocities in the Soviet Union. It continued through Walter Kronkite's days as a biased journalist, and up through Dan Rather who was made infamous for his story about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, informally dubbed "Ra^thergate."

(The "th" superscripted in the scandal's title refers to the "th" in the Killian memo denoting the 187th fighter wing that Bush was a member of. The "th" in 187th was superscripted; a task unable to be done on typewriters of the day, and required a different typewriter for that sort of feature that Killian's secretary said he never would have used for such a compartmentalized memo.)

In short, Mr. Strong is revealing nothing more than what we already knew. The media is biased. They can't deny it, and they can't even explain it. In numerous interviews with journalists, Hugh Hewitt has consistently asked those reporters if there is a bias in the media. By an overwhelming majority, they tell him there is, and it's to the liberal side of the issues/ideology.

Are all media outlets included in this? Yes they are, even FOX News. Ywes, even FOX News has its ideological liberals. The difference between them and others is that they still present a balanced approach to news commentary, and when they report the news they do so as journalist of old did -- Report the facts, and let the viewer/listener determine the truth or veracity of the story. MSM outlets, like those listed in Mr. Strong's piece, don't do that. They start from a point of ideological bias, and craft the story (or defense of, in the case of Barry and Jeremiah Wright) around that bias.

Professor Reynolds also brings up another take on the media on his site today. It comes from Maimon Schwarzschild at Right Coast:

The usual disillusioned phrase is “mainstream media” or MSM. The problem, of course, is not mainstream-hood. Angrily talking about the “state-run media” is even more misguided: the media were anything but state-run, or state-sympathetic, when Bush was president; and Republican or conservative officials or judges can expect relentless hostility now as much as ever.

What we have is One-Party Media: newspapers, broadcast networks, newsmagazines which represent the views and preoccupations of the Democratic Party and the political left, and consistently denigrate or ignore the views and preoccupations of the political right or centre-right; and which very often systematically ignore any news or information which might reflect badly on the one party, or reflect well on the policies, proposals, or values of the other. . . . It is extraordinary, and I think unprecedented, that a free press has voluntarily transformed itself into something not very different from the controlled press in an undemocratic country. But that is what has happened.

Say it with me, folks: "Understatement of the Year." We do have nothing more than a One-Party Media, for the most part, and they will do anything they can to protect this incompetent, obtuse, agenda-driven president that was elected by a majority of America that were sucked in by a snake-oil salesman. He offered them "hope" and "change;" empty rhetoric that didn't require any specificity. But now that the people see that the emperor has no clothes (and no clue, for that matter), they're turning on him. Thanks to those who are investigating the JournoList scandal, we see that the all powerful Wizard IS hiding behind the curtain, and that the media -- the Wizard -- is the source of Barry's real power. So long as his willing defenders are ready to paint dissenters as racists (their preferred card in this debate) Barry is safe behind the facade of competence and power. In fact, he's a weak, petulant bully. They know it. We know it. And now we know that they know it otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to dig in and coordinate a defense for him.

Publius II

Kagan out of Judiciary Committee

2010-07-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

Yes, Elena Kagan was voted out of the Judiciary Committee this morning by a vote of 13-6. Her passage shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, folks:

Pushing toward an election-year Supreme Court confirmation vote, a polarized Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday approved Elena Kagan to be the fourth female justice.

Just one Republican joined Democrats to approve Kagan's nomination and send it to the full Senate, where she's expected to win confirmation within weeks.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., broke with his party to cast the sole GOP "yes" vote on President Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. The vote was 13-6.

I'll give you guys the skinny on dumb@$$ Lindsey Graham, and his idiotic comments about Kagan, but let me give you the general consensus of the GOP on Kagan:

But most GOP senators are against her, arguing that she would put her political views ahead of the law. They point to what they call her liberal agenda and on such issues as abortion and gun rights, and have chastised her for the decision as dean of Harvard Law School to bar military recruiters from the campus career services office because of the policy against openly gay soldiers.

"Ms. Kagan's record shows that she supports an activist judicial philosophy, and that her personal and political views drive her legal views," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

That is exactly the opinion of most of the GOP senators on Kagan. She lacks judicial experience, she doesn't have a great track record as the US Solicitor General, and she has an activist view of what jurists should be doing. In short, she is the president. She is one of his rubber-stamps. She shouldn't make it to the Supreme Court, but she will. Regardless of how the vote goes down, the Democrats don't even need the GOP to approve her. This sixty vote canard is pure BS. Democrats want sixty votes to stave off a GOP filibuster, which isn't even on the horizon. The GOP never intended to launch a filibuster. Why? Because our side plays by the rules. The president is entitled to his appointees. The GOP needed to pull out the long knives in committee, and show the people WHY Kagan shouldn't be on the high court. They didn't. They dropped the ball.

Now, onto Senator Lindsey "Idiot" Graham's clueless comments about Ms. Kagan. Hold onto your lunch, folks: [emphasis mine]

“What’s in Elena Kagan’s heart is that of a good person who adopts a philosophy that I disagree with,” Graham said after other Republicans criticized Kagan, the solicitor general, as lacking judicial experience. “There’s plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote no, but there are plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote yes.”

“She is a loyal American, very patriotic,” Graham said after detailing her record on military issues. He said Kagan was “smart” and “funny” and that shows “you are pretty comfortable with who you are.” He added, “she’s liberal.” Graham also said Miguel Estrada’s letter in support of Kagan hit him “hard” and factored into his decision. During her confirmation hearings, Graham and Kagan discussed Estrada’s legal career and she agreed to write a letter recommending him for the high court. Today, Graham read aloud from Kagan’s letter, which called Estrada a “towering intellect.”

He cited Barack Obama’s election in 2008, saying he’s constitutionally bound to support a qualified nominee and “honor elections” even though he would have made a different choice because he and Obama are on opposite political sides. “She’s passed all those tests,” Graham said.

The Republican also cited upcoming elections, even though he’s not up for reelection this fall. “I’m going to vote for her,” Graham said, “and that doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice. I believe the last election had consequences and this president chose someone who is qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court, who is in the mainstream of liberal philosophy and understand the difference between being a judge and a politician.”

I hope Lindsey Graham doesn't lie awake at night wondering why so many Republicans -- so many conservatives -- detest him. This is a good example of why people don't like him. Who cares if Elena Kagan is a "good person," or if she's "smart" and "funny?" Are those qualifications for the high court? No, they're not. The qualifications are pretty simple: Rule on constitutional challenges, and leave your personal policy preferences at the door; be in "good Behaviour" while serving. "Good Behaviour," for those unaware of the term, comes directly from Article III of the US Constitution, and judicial activism, i.e., legislating from the bench, hardly qualifies as "good Behaviour." In voting for her, Senator Graham is signalling to his constituents that he doesn't care what they think. Rasmussen's poll on Kagan at the beginning of July tells the story of how people view her:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that the plurality (42%) still opposes Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Thirty-six percent (36%) favor her confirmation, while 22% are still undecided.

Whether they want to see it happen or not, most voters continue to see Kagan’s nomination as inevitable. Eight-seven percent (87%) say it’s at least somewhat likely Kagan will be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. That number includes 59% who say it’s Very Likely, the highest result yet.
Voters’ support for Kagan’s confirmation has changed little over the month of June, falling into a range of 33% to 36%. Meanwhile, the number of voters who are opposed to her confirmation has ranged from 41% to 42% during the same period. Voters were more divided on the question in surveys conducted in May.

While 62% of Democrats favor Kagan’s nomination, nearly the same number of Republicans (65%) oppose it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party are more evenly divided, but the plurality (49%) opposes.

What do these numbers tell me? Democrats were always in favor of her, regardless of what she said in her hearings. Republicans were opposed to her, especially when certain aspects of her past came to light. Those without an opinion didn't have the time or the information about her at their fingertips. That last part tells me the GOP dropped the ball in showing just how dangerous a clueless, activist-minded nominee will be on the high court. Don't buy the bull the media is shoveling. She's not a moderate. She's not an originalist. She won't reinforce the originalist wing of the court.

Her nomination is payback for her support of Barry, and she will be his rubber-stamp. As for Lindsey Graham, when this POS is up for reelection, he needs to go. Voters in South Carolina, please take note. Get rid of Graham in 2014 and save the nation from the continued headaches from this moron.

Publius II

Andrew McCarthy deconstructs Eric Holder

2010-07-13T10:16:00.002-07:00

Andrew McCarthy is a former US attorney that worked in the Justice Department, and worked on the cases to try to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers including the "Blind Sheikh," Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to the prosecution of terrorists that we have captured, and he's taken Eric Holder to the woodshed before over the idiotic notion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five of his confederates would receive a fairer trial in civilian court. Today is no exception:

Eric Holder is chief among the many Obama Justice Department lawyers who, during the Bush years, donated their services as private attorneys for the benefit of al-Qaeda terrorists. His motive was to frustrate efforts to treat our wartime enemies as just that: wartime enemies. He preferred the failed law-enforcement model that regards our enemies as garden-variety criminals — the counterterrorism approach he had overseen as deputy attorney general while America was serially attacked during the Clinton years.

Nothing has changed. As the Obama administration’s attorney general, Holder is still gratuitously taking positions that help the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Witness his baffling suggestion this weekend that it would be better to try KSM and five other 9/11 plotters in civilian court because of the purported legal uncertainty about whether guilty pleas are permissible in military death-penalty cases.

To be clear, I am not contending that the attorney general approves of terrorists or that his purpose is to help them. I am saying that Holder is in the thrall of an ideology, the inevitable effect of which is to aid our enemies. This progressive ideology, shared by many legal elites, holds that the use of military legal processes during military conflicts — processes to which the United States has resorted throughout our history — is somehow a greater danger to us than international terrorism itself.

The attorney general would doubtless like to see al-Qaeda chieftains convicted and executed, but only if it is done on his own terms. That means using civilian courts, regardless of whether this rewards the terrorists who have committed the worst atrocities with valuable due-process advantages; betrays the underlying imperative of international humanitarian law to protect civilians from being targeted for attacks; and makes it more difficult to convict and execute war criminals.

The attorney general’s latest claims are grossly misleading. First, he asserts that guilty pleas are permitted in civilian capital cases — as if to imply that only in military courts must we have burdensome trials in which juries must approve the death penalty. Try telling that one to the Moussaoui jury.

At his civilian trial in Virginia, Zacharias Moussaoui did plead guilty to participation in the 9/11 plot. But that plea did not end the case. Under federal law, capital cases are bifurcated: Even if a defendant admits guilt, the issue of punishment must still be tried to the jury. Holder conveniently elides mention not only of this fact but of the history of capital punishment in civilian international-terrorism cases. In the 16 years since the federal death penalty was restored in 1994 — 16 years throughout which the United States has been ravaged by jihadist terror — the Justice Department has approved capital charges for exactly three defendants: Moussaoui and two of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombers. In each case, civilian juries rejected the death penalty. If Holder is saying there’s a better chance these savages will be executed if they are tried in the civilian system (and that is precisely what he’s implying), there is nothing to support that claim.

Second, the claim Holder floats that guilty pleas may not be permissible in capital military-commission cases is meritless. Holder did not explain his theory, but we can speculate that he is referring to a suggestion spun last year in a New York Times report. The paper intimated that federal law might be ambiguous on whether guilty pleas were allowed. Positing that “military law” is the “model for the military commission rules,” the Times report pointed out that, in courts martial for members of our armed forces, guilty pleas are prohibited in capital cases. Prosecutors must prove guilt even if a soldier wants to plead guilty. The Times, which is resolutely anti–death penalty, added that this was to “ensure fairness.”

Nice try. Military commissions are not courts martial, even though it has been a project of the Left — when it is not trying to endow our terrorist enemies with all the rights of American civilians — to vest them with the same legal protections our law gives to American soldiers. Commissions, moreover, do not take place pursuant to the “model” of military law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Instead, they are governed by a special statute, the Military Commissions Act (MCA).

Unlike the UCMJ, the MCA provides no bar to guilty pleas in capital cases. To the contrary, MCA Section 949i(b) states that when an accused pleads guilty to “any charge or specification” (capital charges are not mentioned, much less exempted), a finding of guilt “may be entered immediately without a full vote” of the commission. At that point, the commission moves on to consider sentencing. A different MCA provision, Section 949m, directs that commission members must be unanimous in imposing death.

So where are Holder and the Times getting the idea that guilty pleas are not permitted? They are obviously relying on a portion of Section 949m that says an accused may not be sentenced to death unless he is “convicted of the [capital] offense by the concurrence of all the [commission] members[.]” But that provision is plainly talking about what happens when an accused pleads not guilty, necessitating a trial. It is not silently undertaking to supersede the aforementioned Sec. 949i(b), which separately governs guilty pleas.

As they say, read it all folks. At least by reading this, it will serve as a primer for what actually occurs in a military commission. And based on reading this piece by Mr. McCarthy, it looks as if the new Arizona immigration law, referred to as SB 1070, isn't the only thing Eric Holder hasn't read.

He apparently hasn't read what the Military Commissions Act says, and that makes him incompetent when dealing with these matters. He needs to admit his mistake and let the commissions take place. Don't put these animals through the US civilian court system. It wasn't designed to deal with such matters, and Holder knows this. But ideology seems to trump intelligence in this administration, especially in the Justice Department.

Publius II

R.I.P. George Steinbrenner

2010-07-13T09:45:00.002-07:00

Our sincerest condolences to the Steinbrenner family for their loss. And you can expect the same sort of vitriol directed towards George that we'd expect towards a Republican because he was the most hated man in baseball. Too bad he died this morning because I'm sure all the wishes calling for his death would've made him smile:

George Steinbrenner, a towering and intimidating figure who dominated the New York sports scene for 35 years, winning 11 American League pennants and seven world championships as owner of the Yankees, in and around two suspensions from baseball and multiple feuds and firings, died Tuesday morning in Tampa after suffering a massive heart attack. He was 80.

"The Boss" - as he was so aptly named by Daily News columnist Mike Lupica, his longtime antagonist - died at around 6:30 a.m. He had been suffering from failing health, the result of a series of strokes, for the past few years.

His family released a statement Tuesday morning. "It is with profound sadness that the family of George M. Steinbrenner III announces his passing," the statement said. "He was an incredible and charitable man. First and foremost he was devoted to his entire family - his beloved wife, Joan; his sisters, Susan Norpell and Judy Kamm, his children, Hank, Jennifer, Jessica and Hal; and all his grandchildren. He was a visionary and a giant in the world of sports. He took a great but struggling franchise and turned it into a champion again."

As the old yarn states, "There was no joy in Mudville." Sure, that dealt with a player who struck out at the plate, but it is assured that Yankee fans across the nation are in mourning today. Yes, the fans will miss him, and rivals will take delight that they no longer have to deal with Steinbrenner ever again. Of course, that doesn't mean the Yankees will go downhill. Their management is stellar, and they're rebuilding.

The Yankees will be back.

Eleven pennants and seven World Series victories under his direction is the legacy he leaves for Yankee fans. He will be missed.

Publius II

Rich Lowry on the administration's obtuse move to sue Arizona

2010-07-07T11:03:00.000-07:00

Readers know that my lovely wife and I live in Arizona. We applauded Governor Jan Brewer for having the political courage to sign SB 1070. Well over 70% of the nation supports the new Arizona law; 56% of people polled by Rasmussen disapprove of the Justice Department moving forward with this lawsuit. But as Rich Lowry observes over at National Review this lawsuit has everything to do with politics, and little to do with the law:

The legal case against the Arizona immigration law is unassailable.

The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that the law impermissibly “conflicts with federal law and enforcement priorities,” in the words of the ACLU suit. And who can disagree? Clearly, Arizona’s priority is to enforce the nation’s immigration laws; the federal government’s priority is to ignore them as much as possible. Case closed.

In his immigration speech last week, Pres. Barack Obama warned ominously of a “patchwork” of immigration laws arising as “states and localities go their own ways.” Oddly enough, sanctuary cities acting in open defiance of immigration laws have never notably been the object of his wrath. Who’s to judge the good-hearted people of Berkeley? There’s only one part of the dismaying patchwork that stirs Obama’s cabinet to outrage, and his attorney general to legal action — Arizona’s commitment to enforcement.

The legal fight between the federal government and Arizona will be a case of dueling insincere arguments. The federal government will pretend that it objects to Arizona’s supposedly creating a wholly new scheme of immigration regulation, when its real problem is that the state wants to take existing law too seriously.

Arizona will pretend that it is acting in accord with longstanding federal intent, when in fact its law never would have been necessary if the feds intended to enforce their own statutes. Instead, the federal government has adopted what the Justice Department calls — in a euphemism for the ages — “balanced administration of the immigration laws.”

The case against Arizona rests on “preemption,” the notion that federal law “occupies the field” on immigration and prevents states from passing their own regulations. In the context of the initial gusts of outrage at the Arizona law, this is a somewhat technical transgression. Couldn’t Eric Holder have nailed Arizona for its nascent Nazism?

Arizona has been here before. Pro-immigration groups sued over its workplace enforcement law passed in 2007. All the same arguments were mustered about federal preemption. A U.S. district-court judge (upheld by the appeals court) rejected them because the state law so closely tracked the federal law and didn’t contradict its stated purpose.

The drafters of the new law attempted to meet these same standards by directly drawing on federal statutes for its definition of immigration offenses. The courts have long upheld the right of states to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law, and the Supreme Court in a 1976 decision said federal immigration law didn’t intend “to preclude even harmonious state regulation.” Regardless, the courts will now decide.

The Obama administration hasn’t always been such a stickler for national uniformity. Last year, it reversed Bush-administration policy and stopped prosecuting violations of federal marijuana law by users and suppliers of medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. The upshot is that the direct violation of federal drug laws is acceptable at the state level, whereas the direct enforcement of federal immigration laws at the state level is not.

The animus toward Arizona is nakedly political. Obama, the former hopemonger, has become a moveable feast of cynicism. He promised that he’d move comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office. This became known as la promesa de Obama in the Latino community, and it suffered the same ignominious fate as his pledges to enact a net spending cut and to comb through the federal budget line by line. La decepción de Obama.

According to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating has held steady this year among whites (41 percent) and blacks (91 percent). But it has dropped from 69 percent to 57 percent among Latinos. On cue, Obama gave an immigration speech touting comprehensive reform even though there’s no legislative path forward, and his attorney general sued Arizona. If the thoroughly political Holder thought it would help, he’d sue John Boehner.

And so the battle is joined, with the federal government making the plea — please, whatever you do, let our immigration laws molder on the books.

This is all about politics. Barry & Company want to push through their version of immigration reform which is hardly a reform. It will be much like the failed comprehensive immigration reform that was tried back in 2006 by Senators McCain and Kennedy. That reform was basically amnesty-lite; it would focus more on regularizing illegal aliens here now, and less on enforcement. Recall, if you will, the amnesty passed by President Reagan back in 1986, and the promise that went along with that mistake. The promise was that there would be tougher enforcement of America's immigration laws. After the amnesty was approved, the Congress seemingly forgot their promise to focus on border enforcement.

The issue of illegal immigration has been a political football played by both sides of the aisle. Republicans enjoy the cheap labor from the illegal aliens, and Democrats hope to cement them as a voting bloc. All the citizens of America have ever demanded is that we enforce the laws on the books. Neither side wants to do that, which has led Arizona to take these steps. We are not usurping the federal government's power to prosecute immigration laws. We are pushing them to do it.

Critics of the law claim that it is based on racial profiling. That is an outright lie. If you read the law, racial profiling is specifically prohibited. The police aren't allowed to go up to anyone, and demand to see their proof of citizenship or legal residency. The law outlines the steps that must be taken to even check on the immigration status of a person within the state's borders. First, there has to be an infraction; that is, the person in question has to have broken the law. The police will ask for identification (which they always do, and according to the law, anyone over the age of eighteen is REQUIRED to carry an ID on them at all times in public), and if the person they've stopped or approached lacks that identification then they're subject to arrest. THEN and only then may an officer check their immigration status. IF they have a legal, valid form of ID then the officer can't check on their status. End of story.

But the lawsuit doesn't address the assumption that this law will lead to racial profiling. No, it's based on the preemption argument; that Arizona is taking a power from the federal government, and undermining their immigration enforcement efforts. (OK, stop laughing. I know the federal government isn't doing that job, at least not as they should be.)Further reading of the law states that if the police do detain someone here illegally, that person is to be turned over to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for processing. The moment we hand them over to ICE, it's then in the hands of the federal government. Is that usurping their power? No, it isn't. The new law seeks to reinforce the federal law. If you read the law you'll note that it sounds familiar; that it sounds very much like the federal law.

One can even say that the law is rather redundant. Local law enforcement have been allowed to deal with illegal immigrants for years, as empowered by the federal law. California has a law that is much tougher than our own, and instructs their law enforcement to work hand-in-hand with federal immigration officials to enforce the federal immigration laws. In fact, that law also exclusively outlaws "sanctuary cities" and California has more than a couple of those that flout the law on the books. No one threw a hissy fit when California passed that law back in the late 1990s. But God forbid Arizona do it.

This is an exercise in the absurd. The federal government basically has no leg to stand on. As Mr. Lowry notes, the Worker Sanctions law passed by Arizona back in 2006 was upheld in federal court because it mirrored the federal law closely, and it abides by the definition of the law. That is exactly how this is going to go. And this won't be over in a month, either. Some prognosticators (amateurs, for lack of a better term) claim that this will be all said and done by November. No, this will drag out for the next year, or so, and possibly longer depending on the appeals that will be filed at the end of this initial challenge. In the end, the Arizona law will be upheld because we're not usurping federal power. We're reinforcing it.

Publius II

The coming clash: Executive versus Judiciary

2010-07-06T11:19:00.001-07:00

HT to Professor Glenn Reynolds

The LA Times has the story today about the impending battles that Barry and the Supreme Court will be running into in the years to come. Granted, the Times is liberal in its news coverage and commentary (and they get it wrong with the justices that are "conservative" as Justice Kennedy isn't a solid conservative), but they do get it right with the coming collision course that is completely unavoidable:

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week after landmark decisions protecting the right to have a gun and the right of corporations to spend freely on elections. But the year's most important moment may have come on the January evening when the justices gathered at the Capitol for President Obama's State of the Union address.

They had no warning about what was coming.

Obama and his advisors had weighed how to respond to the court's ruling the week before, which gave corporations the same free-spending rights as ordinary Americans. They saw the ruling as a rash, radical move to tilt the political system toward big business as they coped with the fallout from the Wall Street collapse.

Some advisors counseled caution, but the president opted to criticize the conservative justices in the uncomfortable spotlight of national television as Senate Democrats roared their approval.

[Let me inject right here, right now, that it was improper for the president to do that -- singling out the justices in public -- for the decision they made in Citizen's United. You've got a problem with it? Fine. You bite your tongue and keep your thoughts in the privacy of the White House. You don't go around basically calling out the Supreme Court on decisions they make, decisions they are tasked to carry out. It was unprofessional, petulant, incompetent, amateurish, and unfitting for a sitting president, and his congressional majorities, to do such a thing.]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is still angered by what he saw as a highly partisan insult to the independent judiciary. The incident put a public spotlight on the deep divide between the Obama White House and the Roberts court, one that could have a profound effect in the years ahead.

The president and congressional Democrats have embarked on an ambitious drive to regulate corporations, banks, health insurers and the energy industry. But the high court, with Roberts increasingly in control, will have the final word on those regulatory laws.

Many legal experts foresee a clash between Obama's progressive agenda and the conservative court."

Presidents with active agendas for change almost always encounter resistance in the courts," said Stanford University law professor Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appellate court judge. "It happened to [ Franklin D.] Roosevelt and it happened to Reagan. It will likely happen to Obama too."

Already, the healthcare overhaul law, Obama's signal achievement, is under attack in the courts. Republican attorneys general from 20 states have sued, insisting the law and its mandate to buy health insurance exceed Congress' power and trample on states' rights.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge in New Orleans ruled Obama had overstepped his authority by ordering a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

On another front, the administration says it will soon go to court in Phoenix seeking to block Arizona's controversial immigration law, which is due to take effect July 29. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said Arizona would go to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to preserve the law.

As chief justice, Roberts has steered the court on a conservative course, one that often has tilted toward business. For example, the justices have made it much harder for investors or pension funds to sue companies for stock fraud.

Two years ago, the court declared for the first time that the gun rights of individuals were protected by the Constitution. This year, the justices made clear this was a "fundamental" right that extended to cities and states as well as federal jurisdictions.

Since the arrival in 2006 of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Roberts has had a five-member majority skeptical of campaign funding restrictions. At first, he moved cautiously. Roberts spoke for the majority in 2007 in saying that a preelection broadcast ad sponsored by a nonprofit corporation was protected as free speech even though it criticized a candidate for office.

Last year, the court had before it another seemingly minor challenge to election laws by a group that wanted permission to sell a DVD that slammed Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was running for president in 2008. This time, however, Roberts decided on a much bolder move.

As they say, read it all, folks. The LA Times has hit the nail on the head. Barry's agenda is going to be challenged left-and-right in the federal courts. Will there be setbacks? Sure. More than likely those in opposition to this power-grabbing agenda will run into liberal judges that side with the administration. But given the hostility towards the federal courts from the White House, these appellate courts and the Supreme Court will be more likely to take up these cases as opposed to passing them over.

That's not to say the courts will suddenly become political. However even they can see that there is something wrong with this president's agenda, and it spells disaster for the nation if it's allowed to continue. Remember, the role of the federal courts was to be the final check-and-balance against an overreaching federal government, protecting the rights and liberties of the citizens of this nation. Those on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts specifically, understands this concept, and agrees with it.

There will be a fight between the Executive and the Judiciary in the next couple of years, and if the decisions come down on the side of the Constitution, Barry isn't going to be a happy person. But it will further show this nation that Mr. Constitutional Scholar doesn't know his @$$ from a hole in the ground. Just because he views the Constitution his way doesn't make it so, and he'll have to convince the courts to see things his way. He won't succeed because he doesn't know a bloody thing about the founding document, what it entails, what it means, and what it does for the people of this nation. He'll never get it because the originalist/textualist interpretations of the Constitution are anathema to his political ideology. He is hostile towards the document that guarantees our rights and liberties because, in his opinion, it only speaks of negative liberties with regard to government power.

That, Mr. President, was the intention of our Founding Fathers. I guess he missed that week in history class.

Publius II

Justice Kennedy plans on sticking around

2010-07-06T09:52:00.002-07:00

It's a story from the New York Daily News (HT to Captain Ed) that probably has Barry steamed. Justice Kennedy has confided to friends and family he doesn't intend to leave the Supreme Court until 2013, the year following, hopefully, Barry's defeat for a second term as president:

President Obama may get liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, but conservative swing-voter Anthony Kennedy says he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years - through the end of Obama's first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court's conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.

Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court's four rock-ribbed conservative justices.

Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech.

Obama called the ruling "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power ... in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

He was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on.

What Barry did during his State of the Union speech was uncalled for, extremely unprofessional, and appeared to be rather petulant. He called out the high court on their decision like he was some sort of disapproving parent, or worse a petulant child not satisfied that he didn't get his way. We'd like to think that Justice Kennedy is holding on just to spite the president, and teach the Narcissist-in-Chief a lesson as to where his authority resides. His power isn't found in the judiciary. It's found in the executive branch which, aside from being able to appoint jurists to the federal bench, those powers end right there.

Of course Justice Kennedy isn't doing this out of spite. He's got a lot more class than Barry does. Our best guess is that Kewnnedy sees the direction Barry is wanting to take the high court, and it has shades of FDR's "court-packing" plan in it without the threat of expanding the size of the court. Justice Sotomayor, while deemed competent by the Senate's standards, is a far-left liberal jurist with tendencies towards judicial activism. Of the 380 opinions joined by her or penned by her, the high court granted a hearing to five of them. Three were overwhelmingly reversed by the Supreme Court. So, in terms of sound judicial philosophy, Justice Sotomayor seems to lack it.

Elena Kagan has been appointed to the high court by Barry to replace retiring justice John Paul Stevens. And while she win confirmation (don't kid yourselves folks; she's a shoo-in regardless of what she has said or what has been found in her past) her views regarding the Constitution were called into question by the GOP on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Past statements made, past articles written, shows that she lacks the intellectual heft that is needed for a sitting justice on the Supreme Court. Now, we warn readers that her win-loss record as solicitor general means virtually nothing. As solicitor general, it was her job to argue the government's side of an issue before the justices. The cases the solicitor general takes on are generally tough cases, and many seen as unwinnable or virtually impossible to prevail, especially if the lawyer in question lacks a firm grasp of constitutional jurisprudence.

That's two liberal justices replacing two liberal justices. It's a wash in a way, and the only drawback to both Sotomayor and Kagan winning their confirmation battles (hardly battles as the Senate has basically rolled over for their belly scratch on both jurists) is that they will be on the high court for decades to come. As of 2012 four justices will be age 75 or older -- Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Scalia, like Justice Kennedy, has no intention of retiring anytime soon. Justice Ginsburg has continually waved off questions about her possible retirement. Justice Breyer has been mum on the subject, as well.

But given how the midterms might go in November, even if there is a retirement Barry probably won't be able to nominate another jurist in the mold of liberals Sotomayor or Kagan. He would be forced to appoint a moderate jurist which, when Kennedy retires, would be the new swing vote on the high court. Justice Kennedy assumed that mantle when Justice O'Connor retired back in 2006. While some may say that he runs a 50-50 split on swing decisions, if you take a close look at the cases where he has swung towards the conservative wing of the high court, those decisions are important ones that include First and Second Amendment issues.

This news today is important. Well, it's important for us court watchers especially with consideration to this incompetent president, and his desire to rewrite the law from the bench as opposed to the halls of Congress. Both of his choices to replace outgoing justices aren't exactly friendly to the Constitution, and both have made statements in the past akin to the president's belief that the Constitution is constructed of negative liberties; it tells us what the government -- be it federal or state -- can't do rather than what they can do on the behalf of the people. Here's a constitutional lesson for the president:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think it's pretty cut-and-dry as to what the government was supposed to do, and where its powers lay, i.e., what the government can do for the people. Barry forgets this even though it is the very first thing cited in the US Constitution.

We hope that Justice Kennedy can hang on through the remainder of this rookie's term in office. If not, his departure would signal a significant shift on the Supreme Court, and spark a war in the Senate over who Barry would choose to replace Kennedy with. And make no mistake folks, his nominee will be as close to his own philosophy as possible.

Publius II

Barry's "To-Do" list for the Gulf oil spill

2010-06-30T10:31:00.001-07:00

From The Heritage Foundation's "Morning Bell" blog:

The oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico gets worse by the day. Oil spews from the broken well, further polluting our water and shores. The clean-up efforts drag on with bureaucratic interference, making matters worse. And what is the Obama administration doing? It continues to push for unrelated responses that will have a disastrous effect on our economy, especially the economy of the Gulf states most affected.

In fact, President Obama summoned a bipartisan group of senators to the White House on Tuesday to discuss his climate change legislation. When Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander suggested that any such energy meeting should include a focus on the oil spill and BP, Obama responded: “that’s just your talking point” and refused to discuss the crisis.

Unfortunately, the American people are not hearing any of this. Day after day, blind allegiance to the president causes his supporters on the left to simply say the government is doing all that it can. The national media, prone to attention deficit disorder when a president they support is in the White House, have already moved on to a myriad of other subjects, offering only sporadic updates on the continuing crisis. ...

1. Waive the Jones Act: According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill cleanup by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go at it alone. The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act, which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flagged ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But, in an emergency, this law can be temporarily waived, as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina. Each day European and Asian allies are prevented from helping us speed up the cleanup is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die. For more information on this, click here.

2. Accept International Assistance: At least thirty countries and international organizations have offered equipment and experts so far. According to reports this week, the White House has finally decided to accept help from twelve of these nations. The Obama administration should make clear why they are refusing the other eighteen-plus offers. In a statement, the State Department said it is still working out the particulars of the assistance it has accepted. This should be done swiftly as months have already been wasted.

Take Sweden, for example. According to Heritage expert James Carafano: “After offering assistance shortly after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Sweden received a request for information about their specialized assets from the State Department on May 7. Swedish officials answered the inquiry the same day, saying that some assets, such as booms, could be sent within days and that it would take a couple of weeks to send ships. There are three brand new Swedish Coast Guard vessels built for dealing with a major oil spill cleanup. Each has a capacity to collect nearly 50 tons of oil per hour from the surface of the sea and can hold 1,000 tons of spilled oil in their tanks. But according to the State Department’s recently released chart on international offers of assistance, the Swedish equipment and ships are still ‘under consideration.’ So months later, the booms sit unused and brand new Swedish ships still sit idle in port, thousands of miles from the Gulf. The delay in accepting offers of assistance is unacceptable.” For more information, click here or here.

3. Lift the Moratorium: The Obama administration’s over-expansive ban on offshore energy development is killing jobs when they are needed most. A panel of engineering experts told The New Orleans Times-Picayune that they only supported a six-month ban on new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. Those same experts were consulted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar before he issued his May 27 report recommending a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. A letter from these experts reads: “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do.”

And just how many innocent jobs is Obama’s oil ban killing? An earlier Times-Picayune report estimated the moratorium could cost Louisiana 7,590 jobs and $2.97 billion in revenue directly related to the oil industry. For more information on this, click here.

4. Release the S.S. A-Whale: The S.S. A-Whale skimmer is a converted oil tanker capable of cleaning 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the Gulf waters. Currently, the largest skimmer being used in the clean-up efforts can handle 4,000 barrels a day, and the entire fleet our government has authorized for BP has only gathered 600,000 barrels, total in the 70 days since the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The ship embarked from Norfolk, VA, this week toward the Gulf, hoping to get federal approval to begin assisting the clean-up, but is facing bureaucratic resistance.

As a foreign-flagged ship, the S.S. A-Whale needs a waiver from the Jones Act, but even outside that three-mile limitation, the U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA have to approve its operation due to the nature of its operation, which separates the oil from the water and then releases water back into the Gulf, with a minor amount of oil residue. The government should not place perfection over the need for speed, especially facing the threat of an active hurricane season. For more information on this, click here.

5. Remove State and Local Roadblocks: Local governments are not getting the assistance they need to help in the cleanup. For example, nearly two months ago, officials from Escambia County, Fla., requested permission from the Mobile Unified Command Center to use a sand skimmer, a device pulled behind a tractor that removes oil and tar from the top three feet of sand, to help clean up Pensacola’s beaches. County officials still haven’t heard anything back. Santa Rosa Island Authority Buck Lee explains why: “Escambia County sends a request to the Mobile, Ala., Unified Command Center. Then, it’s reviewed by BP, the federal government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. If they don’t like it, they don’t tell us anything.”

State and local governments know their geography, people, economic impacts and needs far better than the federal government does. Contrary to popular belief, the federal government has actually been playing a bigger and bigger role in running natural disaster responses. And as Heritage fellow Matt Mayer has documented, the results have gotten worse, not better. Local governments should be given the tools they need to aid in the disaster relief. For more information on this, click here.

6. Allow Sand Berm Dredging: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently prevented the state of Louisiana from dredging to build protective sand berms. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser immediately sent a letter to President Obama requesting that the work continue. He said, “Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil. Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.” For more information on this, click here.

7. Waive or Suspend EPA Regulations: Because more water than oil is collected in skimming operations (85% to 90% is water according to Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen), operators need to discharge the filtered water back into the Gulf so they can continue to collect oil. The discharged water is vastly cleaner than when it was skimmed, but not sufficiently pure according to normal EPA regulations. If the water has to be kept in the vessel and taken back to shore for purification, it vastly multiples the resources and time needed, requiring cleanup ships to make extra round trips, transporting seven times as much water as the oil they collect. We already have insufficient cleanup ships (as the Coast Guard officially determined); they need to be cleaning up oil, not transporting water. For more information, click here.

8. Temporarily Loosen Coast Guard Inspections: In early June, sixteen barges that were vacuuming oil out of the Gulf were ordered to halt work. The Coast Guard had the clean-up vessels sit idle as they were inspected for fire extinguishers and life vests. Maritime safety is clearly a priority, but speed is of the essence in the Gulf waters. The U.S. Coast Guard should either temporarily loosen its inspection procedures or implement a process that allows inspections to occur as the ships operate. For more information, click here.

9. Stop Coast Guard Budget Cuts: Now is not the time to be cutting Coast Guard capabilities, but that is exactly what President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are doing. Rather than rebuilding and modernizing the Coast Guard as is necessary, they are cutting back assets needed to respond to catastrophic disasters. In particular, the National Strike Force, specifically organized to respond to oil spills and other hazardous materials disasters, is being cut. Overall, President Obama has told the Coast Guard to shed nearly 1,000 personnel, five cutters, and several helicopters and aircraft. Congress and the Administration should double the U.S. Coast Guard’s active and reserve end strength over the next decade and significantly accelerate Coast Guard modernization, but for the time being, they should halt all budgetary cuts. For more information, click here.

10. Halt Climate Change Legislation: President Obama has placed his focus to the oil spill on oil demand rather than oil in our water. Regardless of political views, now is not the time to be taking advantage of this crisis to further an unrelated piece of legislation that will kill jobs and, in the President’s own words, cause energy prices to “skyrocket.” Less than 5% of our nation’s electricity needs are met by petroleum. Pushing solar and wind alternatives is in no way related to the disaster in the Gulf. It’s time for President Obama to focus on the direct actions he can take in the Gulf rather than the indirect harm he can cause in Congress. As Heritage expert David Kreutzer opines: “Fix the leak first, and then we’ll talk.” A crisis should not be a terrible thing to waste, as Rahm Emanuel said, but a problem to be solved.

Folks, if we had thinkers like those at Heritage in the Obama administration, I'm pretty confident that the last year-and-a-half wouldn't have been as much of a disaster as it has been, and the president wouldn't be seeing his approval numbers below 50% right now. Barry is a failure. He doesn't want to be the president. He just enjoys the perks of the taxpayer dime as he jets around the world for idiotic purposes, as he plays golf, shoots hoops, and generally makes himself a paint in the @$$ to the American public.

Hey Barry, would you actually like to BE the president now instead of doing your best Martin Sheen impression of playing the president?

Publius II

Robert Byrd RIP

2010-06-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

The longest serving senator in the US Senate died early this morning, leaving the Senate with a pickle of a problem, legislatively speaking:

The Senate has lost one of its legends with the death of Robert C. Byrd, an orphan child who married a coal miner’s daughter and rose from the hollows of West Virginia coal country to become the longest serving senator in U.S. history.

He died around 3 a.m. Monday morning after being admitted to the hospital last week for dehydration, yet his condition worsened over the weekend and he became critically ill. Byrd was 92.

What's the pickle? Nate Silver explained part of this prior to the passing of Senator Byrd:

Byrd’s current term expires on January 3, 2013. Under West Virginia state law on handling Senate vacancies, “if the vacancy occurs less than two years and six months before the end of the term, the Governor appoints someone to fill the unexpired term and there is no election”. Otherwise, Manchin would appoint an interim replacement, and an special election would be held in November to determine who held the seat in 2011 and 2012.

In other words, we are within a week of the threshold established by West Virginia law. If a vacancy were to be declared on July 3rd or later, there would not be an election to replace Byrd until 2012. If it were to occur earlier, there could potentially be an election later this year, although there might be some ambiguities arising from precisely when and how the vacancy were declared.

That's just part of the problem, and that one lies at the feet of Governor Manchin. Granted, as Captain Ed notes, Manchin wanted that seat for himself. ABC News reports that Manchin has to declare the seat vacant, and if the voters in West Virginia don't raise a big stink about it then he can take his time.

However, the longer this takes that means Harry Reid has one less vote in the Senate. And should Barry apply pressure to Manchin to name a replacement, he would be interfering in a state matter. It is up to the governor, and the governor is going to want to appoint the seemingly best person to the position (not so good he couldn't take the seat himself at a later date, of course), but at least someone who has a clue as to what they're doing (unlike Roland Burris).

As for kind words on his passing? I really don't have a lot of them. The man was an embarrassment to the Democrat party. He was a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, and had a history rife with racism. It wasn't until his later years when he apologized for that past, and admitted that today's world had no room for those views. He was also an embarrassment when it came to his self-described classification of being the "constitutional expert" in the Senate. I could care less about his four-volume set of books on the Constitution, the man didn't know squat about the document. He was a pork-barrel spender for the state of West Virginia, so much so that the taxpayers of his state raised a statue in his honor.

The man should have retired decades ago. Our condolences to the remaining family he has, but we have little else to offer in terms of kind words. We didn't like the man, and didn't believe he should have been lauded the way most Democrats did.

Publius II

McChrystal out, Petraeus in

2010-06-23T10:53:00.000-07:00

This is breaking just now. Apparently General McChrystal has tendered his resignation with Barry, and it's been accepted:

A senior administration official tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and is replacing him with Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command.

McChrystal was pushed out over his blistering remarks about administration officials quoted in a magazine interview.

After an Oval Office meeting with McChrystal in the morning, Obama huddled with his war advisers and planned to announce his decision on the general's fate to the nation at 1:30 p.m. EDT in the Rose Garden.

The official spoke only on condition of anonymity, because the president's announcement was not yet public. Petraeus now oversees the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Look, we knew this was going to happen. We knew that either General McChrystal was either going to resign or be sacked. The thin-skinned president isn't one to allow criticism to go unpunished, and it was clear yesterday that he was out. We had hoped that he'd end up with a dressing down; a reprimand, and be allowed to return to duty in Afghanistan. Apparently, that's not the case.

Do we excuse General McChrystal and the comments that were quoted from his aides? No, we don't. They should know that any public rebuke or critique of the administration was going to result in someone losing their job. The lessons from MacArthur during Korea should have served as a reminder to what they were saying, and who they were saying it to. Evidently, they didn't take that into account.

Do soldiers gripe in the field? Hell yes they do, and more often than not, their ire is directed towards the civilian leadership in DC. The military detests back-bencher, armchair quarterbacks questioning them, and constantly checking up on them. But you don't go off spouting about it in public, and that was where they made their mistake.

It's a shame to see McChrystal go, but at least the troops in Afghanistan will be in good hands when General David Petraeus arrives. He helmed the Surge in Iraq, and he'll do what he has to do to win in Afghanistan.

Publius II

More feckless bureaucratic fiddling while the Gulf burns

2010-06-23T08:53:00.002-07:00

Actually, a plan early on in the Gulf situation called for burning the oil off, but the enviro-weenies the president seems beholden to threw a hissy fit over that idea. But the situation in the Gulf isn't getting any better, and federal government has ordered the complete shut-down of berm building to go into effect tonight at midnight:

The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.

Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.

The California dredge located off the Chandelier Islands has pumped more than 50,000 cubic yards of material daily to create a sand berm, according to Plaquemines Parish officials.

Nungesser's letter includes an emotional plea to the president.

"Please don't let them shut this dredge down," he wrote. "This requires your immediate attention!"

"Mr. Nungesser, I'm sorry but the president is currently unavailable. He had to take time out of his busy golfing/hoops shooting day to dress down General Stanley McChrystal. Please leave your name, number, and contribution check for the president, and we'll make sure he gets back to you at his earliest possible convenience."

Folks, "feckless" doesn't even begin to describe the lack of leadership and effort to stave off the flow of oil into the Gulf and its clean-up. We are now on Day 64, and we're still no closer to cleaning this mess up than we were from the start. Had the federal government actually acted in the beginning, much of this would already be cleaned up. (After all, the Dutch did offer their help, and that of another dozen nations to help with the clean-up but that offer was turned down by the White House.)

Barry's sycophantic supporters can repeat his mantra of being involved in this "from Day One," but that boast doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Governor Bobby Jindal has been screaming at the federal government to do something other than twiddle their thumbs, and demand that environmental impact studies be completed before any clean-up work really starts. This is what happens when a bloated bureaucracy leaps into action ..... Two months later people are still waiting for action.

The simple fact is this: The president doesn't seem to care about the oil accident. He's shown that in how long it took him to address the accident to begin with (10 days), and the consistent demands for berms, booms, and skimmers went unheard for the better part of two months. As Governor Jindal started to move, the White House finally relented, and allowed the construction of the berms.

But now they're being told to stop, and built them another two miles out. Um, where was this decision two months ago? That was a decision that should have been made in the hours after the accident, not months. Barry is showing this nation exactly what he is: A clueless rookie that never had to make a decision harder than what to pair the Kobe beef steaks with. He is an embarrassment to the nation, and the world is having a facepalm moment in trusting this guy to know what the Hell he's doing.

Publius II

General McChrystal called on the carpet

2010-06-22T11:40:00.001-07:00

General Stanley McChrystal is facing a firestorm over his controversial interview with Rolling Stone magazine (whiskey-foxtrot-tango?) and has been ordered to the White House, from Kabul, to explain himself, and get a dressing down from the president:

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.

The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign for insubordination.

McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.

An administration official says McChrystal was asked to attend in person rather than by secure video teleconference, “where he will have to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.”

Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken with McChrystal. Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Mullen, said “the chairman spoke to General McChrystal last night and expressed his deep disappointment with the article and with the comments expressed therein.”

First, let me say that Rolling Stone is hardly the place to vent. After all, the magazine is barely more than a rag akin to the Arizona Republic (or Arizona Repugnant, if you live in Arizona, and know the paper as well as we do). That said, there's an unwritten rule in the military that you take up such matters in private, and if privacy isn't available, you bite your tongue, and keep your opinions to yourself. So, McChrystal screwed up on that particular point. However, the people calling for his head on a platter seem to forget that Barry doesn't exactly have a plethora of counter-terror/counter-insurgency experts to choose from.

General Stanley McChrystal was credited with taking out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, and his career has been exemplary as an Airborne Ranger. The man helped create the counter-insurgency strategy used in Iraq for the Surge, and he has carried much of that over to Afghanistan. So, if relieved of his command, Barry will be hard-pressed to find a suitable replacement. The question remains "Does this amount to insubordination?" The link to the Rolling Stone article is here. HT to Captain Ed for the link.

Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn’t know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better.

“It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f*cking war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

[I censored the language above.] Captain Ed is correct: This sort of criticism is reserved for memoirs, or after one leaves the service; it's not for when one is still serving the current Commander-in-Chief. You can despise Barry all you want, and believe me we do, but there is a certain professionalism and decorum when you're a serving commander of military forces that's called for when it comes to speaking of the president. More:

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. “I never know what’s going to pop out until I’m up there, that’s the problem,” he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?”

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: Bite Me?” ...

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. “The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” says a member of the general’s team. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He’s a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can’t just have someone yanking on shit.”

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,” he groans. “I don’t even want to open it.” He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.“Make sure you don’t get any of that on your leg,” an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail. ...

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds $600 billion a year, while the State Department receives only $50 billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama’s top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a “clown” who remains “stuck in 1985.” Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, “turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful.” Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle. “Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,” says an adviser. “She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’ ”

Is this insubordination? No, not by my reading. Insubordination, as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice is:

ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER

Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--

(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;

(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or

(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;

Nothing in this applies to the president. It applies to officers the person serves with. What McChrystal did falls under Article 89 of the UCMJ:

ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Or, more likely, under Article 88 of the UCMJ [emphasis mine]:

ART. 88 - CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

General McChrystal may be brought up on Article 88 charges, and be court-martialed for it. He clearly did exactly that in this article (at least his aides did in recounting what the general supposedly said in closed quarters), but if what has been relayed is true, McChrystal is guilty of this charge.

I'll be blunt: We don't like the president. We think he's an incompetent rookie that couldn't find his @$$ in the dark with both hands and a flashlight. However, when you take the oath in the military, it's expected that you will follow the orders of the duly-elected president who is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and if you have a beef with him, you bring it up to him directly, and privately. You don't criticize him publicly. That's a no-no. Every military veteran we know, and every serving soldier we know, will not publicly criticize the president. They may not like him, and they may tell us that in private, but they're not going to go spouting off, in public, how much they dislike him. They understand the necessity for unanimity in the military and in the chain of command. They also understand that such things, when said in public, could very well affect the morale of soldiers they serve with or serve over. That is unacceptable. McChrystal should have known better, and apparently he didn't.

A court-martial would be in order. But his removal from command would be asinine. The pundits calling for his head need to shut up. A reprimand should be in his record, and that should be the end of this little issue. If the president demands his resignation, he's cutting off his nose to spite his face, and he's feeding his already overblown ego.

That won't serve the troops well in Afghanistan, nor will it win him any serious support (other than lip service) from the troops in the region that continue to fight this war.

Publius II

Reaction to Barry's lifeless, specificity-lacking speech

2010-06-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

Presidents don't often get the chance to address the nation from the Oval Office. Those occasions are usually reserved for a national tragedy (a la the space shuttle Challenger blowing up in 1986), or for consoling the nation in the face of a serious tragedy (a la President Bush's address to America on 11 September). Barry's address last night was a serious let-down, and that's not just the reaction from those of us on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Andy Barr at Politico picks up on a couple instances where those on the Left tossed in their two cents worth, which was about how much the president's address was worth:

“Junk Shot,” blared the headline at Huffington Post. Salon took a similar theme: “Just words: Oval Office speech fizzles.” ...

“It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days,” said Olbermann on his show’s recap of the speech.

He noted that there was “not even much of a pitch for his own energy bill which, as he mentioned, was passed by the House, which he did not mention was stalled in the Senate and still sits there.”

“Nothing specific,” he added. “Nothing specific at all.”

Appearing with Olbermann, “Hardball” host Matthews said Obama fell short in showing the American public that he is in charge.

“I don’t sense executive command,” Matthews said.

Huffington Post, underneath a picture of Obama, linked to stories from its own writers on what he was “overlooking” and asking “what was the point of that terrible speech?”

Ouch. Granted, those opinions aren't as harsh as other ones. Take, for example, John Hinderacker's take on the speech at PowerLine. (HT to Hugh Hewitt.) Mr. Hinderacker is a lawyer, and takes a sharp scalpel to the president's speech:

I read President Obama's Oval Office speech at an airport gate rather than seeing it on television, so I might have misjudged its impact. But it struck me as uninspiring at best. Obama has been behind the curve ever since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, and over the last week or two he has transparently tried to stop the political bleeding with a series of symbolic acts. The problem is that these gestures won't do anything to contain the oil that is already swirling around the Gulf--currently spewing out at an upwardly-revised estimate of up to 60,000 barrels per day--and the environmental disaster will continue to unfold over the coming weeks and months regardless of what the federal government now does.

So nothing Obama says is likely to change the negative impression the public has already formed, rightly or not, of the administration's response to the spill. Residents of Louisiana, by a 50-35 margin, rate the Obama administration's response worse than the Bush administration's performance on Hurricane Katrina.

It's hard to see how an Oval Office Speech could help much, even if it had not been pedestrian. In fact, the speech offered nothing new, and featured the same BP-bashing and pledges to unleash squadrons of lawyers to collect damages that already grate on most Americans. Obama doesn't seem to understand how hollow, and sometimes petulant, his vows to make BP pay sound.

But what struck me the most about tonight's speech is how dishonest Obama was. There is nothing new about this, but tonight's performance seemed to pack a lot of whoppers into a relatively small space. Here are a few:

I've talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don't know how they're going to support their families this year. I've seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers - even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I've talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists will start to come back. The sadness and anger they feel is not just about the money they've lost. It's about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness.

Two problems here. First, collecting money from BP won't restore the way of life that many on the Gulf fear is slipping away. Second, while human error no doubt played a role in the disaster, there is no evidence that BP was "reckless." As I noted yesterday, BP's market capitalization has declined by around 50 percent--$100 billion--as a result of the spill. By any rational measure, BP has been harmed more by the spill than anyone else, even Barack Obama. It serves no purpose to launch unsupported accusations of recklessness. One might say, on the contrary, that it is reckless to do so.

I'd cite the whole thing from Mr. Hinderacker, but I think you ought to go and read it for yourselves. It's lengthy, but he hammers the president on his whoppers, his twisting of facts, and more importantly he unloads on the president for the one thing that people down in the Gulf wanted to hear.

He offered no solution. He blasted British Petroleum again. And he basically offered up the idea of a carbon tax. Taxes are the last thing people in the Gulf wanted to here. Given the huge deficits the government is running up right now, the people have no more money to give to Uncle Sam, and if the Democrats go along with this they're finished in November. It's already apparent that they'll take a drubbing at the ballot box in November, but if they go along with the idea of adding another tax to our backs we'll make sure they don't see the slightest hint of power for the next decade.

Instead of speeches and more empty suit rhetoric this nation wanted to hear solutions to the problem. He gave none. As Keith Olbermann observed (cited above) there was nothing specific that he proposed to the nation. I'd add that people are also sick of him pointing fingers. He is the President of the United States, and at some point during his term in office (may it only be four years) he needs to stand up and be a leader. Since being inaugurated last January he has done what he did last night.

He voted present.

Publius II

Observations on the continued Gulf oil spill circus ...

2010-06-15T12:37:00.000-07:00

First off, Gallup has Barry's approval sitting at 46%. that's the lowest his numbers have been since being inaugurated last January, and back on 27 May, Gallup reported that a majority of Americans believed the government, led by Barry, had failed in containing this spill, and acting effectively to deal with it. Whether Barry and his sycophantic supporters want to believe it or not, this is THIS president's "My Pet Goat" moment, complete with the deer-in-the-headlights anxiety that we see from this administration. Now, what could I possibly mean by that? I defer to Thomas Sowell who sums this up perfectly:

Let's stop and think. Either the government knows how to stop the oil spill or they don't. If they know how to stop it, then why have they let thousands of barrels of oil per day keep gushing out, for weeks on end? All they have to do is tell BP to step aside, while the government comes in to do it right.

If they don't know, then what is all this political grandstanding about keeping their boot on the neck of BP, the attorney general of the United States going down to the Gulf to threaten lawsuits - on what charges was unspecified - and President Obama showing up in his shirt sleeves?

Just what is Obama going to do in his shirt sleeves, except impress the gullible? He might as well have shown up in a tuxedo with white tie, for all the difference it makes.

This government is not about governing. It is about creating an impression. That worked on the campaign trail in 2008, but it is a disaster in the White House, where rhetoric is no substitute for reality.

If the Obama administration was for real, and trying to help get the oil spill contained as soon as possible, the last thing its attorney general would be doing is threatening a lawsuit. A lawsuit is not going to stop the oil, and creating a distraction can only make people at BP start directing their attention toward covering themselves, instead of covering the oil well.

If and when the attorney general finds that BP did something illegal, that will be time enough to start a lawsuit. But making a public announcement at this time accomplishes absolutely nothing substantive. It is just more political grandstanding.

This is not about oil. This is about snake oil.

Nothing will keep a man or an institution determined to continue on a failing policy course like past success with that policy. Obama's political success in the 2008 election campaign was a spectacular triumph of creating images and impressions.

But creating political impressions and images is not the same thing as governing. Yet Obama in the White House keeps on saying and doing things to impress people, instead of governing.

Hammer. Nail. Head. No one quite hits the target the way Dr. Sowell does, and he is spot-on in his assessment. Now, contrast the grandstanding with the real leadership from Governor Bobby Jindal; fed up with empty rhetoric from this administration:

Eight weeks into the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of the Mexico, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has told the National Guard that there's no time left to wait for BP, so they're taking matters into their own hands.

In Fort Jackson, LA., Jindal has ordered the Guard to start building barrier walls right in the middle of the ocean. The barriers, built nine miles off shore, are intended to keep the oil from reaching the coast by filling the gaps between barrier islands.

Today, huge Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters lined up in the air, dropping sandbags one by one into the sea.

"They are lifting up about 7,000 pounds of sandbags," said 1st Lt. James Tyson Gabler.

We can understand the governor's frustrations with BP, but the facts still speak for themselves. Governor Jindal was told by the administration that he couldn't act to protect his shores until an environmental impact survey was conducted to see what effect, if any, the berms would have. The administration seemed more fixated on the damage that might potentially be done by constructing the berms to prevent the oil from washing ashore as opposed to the real damage the oil itself would do; this despite Governor Jindal's warnings about the environmental damage that would occur if the oil reached Louisiana.

Since this accident occurred, the president has been more concerned about rhetoric and image as opposed to action. As Dr. Sowell observes, the talking points and platitudes are great on the campaign trail, but being president means having to make decisions, sometimes tough ones, and rhetorical flourishes have no place in that office when action is demanded.

Michelle Malkin notes that Barry is catching flak for his poorly-chosen words comparing the Gulf oil spill to the 9/11 attacks. Now when we heard that, we were naturally ticked; angered by the misplaced allegory. But we were also amused that he would dare to compare his actions in this accident to that of President Bush in the aftermath of the worst attack on the United States, ever.

We can start with the basics such as the fact that Bush was at Ground Zero a couple short days after that attack whereas it took Barry ten days to even mention the accident, and another few days before he showed up down in Louisiana. The Left criticized Bush for not jumping up like Superman when he learned of the attacks, but they give Barry a pass for his nonchalant attitude regarding this accident. Bush's response was to go to Congress, and ask for a declaration of war. Barry declared war on the only entity qualified to handle the accident which was British Petroleum. And the list is seemingly endless. Oh, and Barry, the Brits aren't exactly happy with you making that comparison. They called the statement "cruel." Personally, we call it stupid, but that isn't exactly news concerning this administration. This administration has to be filled with some of the most inept, incompetent, ill-educated, non-common sense-minded people this nation has ever seen. Congrats guys, you managed to knock Jimmy Carter off the top of the list as the worst presidency ever in the history of the nation.

The Heritage Foundation has done yeoman's work in investigating what could and should be done to deal with this spill. What they reveal in this piece should have everyone -- regardless of whether or not you're an environmentalist or not -- spitting nails. The media has ignored this little fact, but not Heritage:

When the federal government isn’t sapping the initiative and expertise of local governments, it has been preventing foreign governments from helping. Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. Thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down.

According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill cleanup by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go at it alone. The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But, in an emergency, this law can be temporarily waived, as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina. Each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the cleanup is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.

They refused the help. Barry is having more fun sucking up to tinhorn dictators and thugs than with accepting help from our allies. This administration has set US foreign policy back decades with its continued snubbing of our allies, from the Brits, to the Israelis, to the Iraqis, and now the Dutch; a nation willing to work in concert with a dozen other nations and the US in containing and cleaning up this mess.

But Barry & Company aren't interested. They're concerned with rhetoric, public image, and their agenda, and all of this garbage he's had to face since being inaugurated is a distraction; an interruption that prevents them from pushing their radical agenda forward. Funny thing about a president's agenda: They can get a decent amount of their agenda passed and enacted, but the real world tends to befuddle their plans and timetable. After all, Bush never wanted to be a wartime president, but he stepped up to the task when the decision hit his desk. Barry is still in the middle of voting "present" than making decisions.

Publius II

Primary round-up

2010-06-09T09:11:00.000-07:00

Last night was a big primary night around the country. We're pretty sure that more than a couple Democrats aren't pleased with who they're going to be facing this fall. Needless to say, the GOP women shined brightly last night in their wins:

Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, who ascended to the top of the business world before turning to politics, prevailed on Tuesday in their respective battles for the Republican nominations for the United States Senate and governor in California, setting the stage for costly general election fights this fall.

Ms. Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, beat Tom Campbell, a former congressman, and Chuck DeVore, whose candidacy drew the backing of many Tea Party activists. She will face the incumbent senator, Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, in the fall.

Ms. Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay and a billionaire, had invested a small share of her personal fortune to prevail in the governor’s race over Steve Poizner, the state insurance commissioner, who put $24 million of his own money into his primary campaign. She will challenge Jerry Brown, the state’s Democratic attorney general, who was first elected governor of California three decades ago. ...

In a closely watched race in Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln survived a tough challenge from her party’s left wing to capture the Democratic nomination in a runoff primary election, resisting the anti-incumbent wave that has defined the midterm election year.

Mrs. Lincoln withstood a multimillion-dollar campaign against her from organized labor, environmental groups and liberal advocacy organizations from outside Arkansas as she prevailed over Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. She faces a difficult contest in the fall, but her victory challenges the suggestion that voters are poised to oust all officeholders.

“We proved that this senator’s vote is not for sale and neither is yours,” Mrs. Lincoln said. “We took on the outside groups seeking to manipulate our votes.”

It was the busiest primary day so far this year, a coast-to-coast series of contests that stretched from Maine to California and helped to decide which candidates will be on the general election ballot in races for governor, the House and the Senate.

Setting the stage for one of the more intriguing races this fall, Nevada Republicans chose Sharron Angle, a candidate backed by the Tea Party, to challenge Senator Harry Reid, the embattled Senate majority leader. Mr. Reid has emerged as a primary target of conservatives intent on dethroning key Democrats this year.

In South Carolina, Nikki Haley moved closer to becoming the first female governor of South Carolina as she strongly outpaced three Republican primary rivals in one of the nation’s most divisive contests. ...

Iowa Republicans nominated Terry Branstad, who served as the state’s governor from 1983 to 1999, to run again. He prevailed in a three-way primary and will face Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, in the fall.

In another South Carolina race, Representative Bob Inglis, a Republican who has occasionally broken with his party on national security and social issues, was forced into a runoff against Trey Gowdy.

In the only contest of the night that will send a new lawmaker to Congress, voters in the northwest corner of Georgia elected a former State House member, Tom Graves, to fill a House vacancy created when Representative Nathan Deal left to run for governor. It was a low-turnout election and is expected to be the last special Congressional election before November, meaning that any new vacancies will be filled on Nov. 2.

In Virginia, Robert Hurt, a state senator, easily won a contested Republican primary to challenge Representative Tom Perriello, a freshman Democrat, in November. Mr. Perriello is considered one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents because of his votes for both the Democratic health care bill and climate change measures.

What the Times failed to cover was that Jim DeMint won his primary in South Carolina, as well, putting to rest all of the critics saying he was done like dinner. Also, sadly, John Eastman came in second in the California AG race. While we would've liked to see him on the ballot in November, his half-million votes showed that he wasn't a flash in the pan, and many, many Californians that backed him were signalling that they wanted to see a serious change in the AG's office.

Anyone who thought that Ms. Whitman, Ms. Fiorina, and Ms. Angle didn't have a shot at winning, I hope you all enjoy the egg on your face. Both Whitman and Fiorina are going to be tough opponents for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, respectively. (If I were either of them, I'd be sitting down with my campaign staff today to devise a strategy. However, they'd be smart to remember both of these women are former CEOs -- captains of industry -- and they're extremely smart, savvy, and shrewd.)

On a lighter note, noted Birther, Orly Taitz, lost in her bid to be California's GOP nominee for Secretary of State. This loon is so out there she tried to get her opponent thrown off the ballot, using the argument he didn't file his registration by the deadline. Furthermore, if any of you happen to be fans of her, and are still holding out a glimmer of hope she can win any of her nutty Birther lawsuits in an effort to overturn the presidential election in 2008, you can forget it. She's been sanctioned by so many courts, forbidding her suits, that this should be the final nail in this woman's coffin, both politically and legally. And just as we shed no tears for Helen Thomas retiring, we shed no tears over this nutbag's loss.

Congrats to the winners. They have a long, tough slog ahead of them. We know Democrats aren't going to silently disappear into the night. They know that their political future this year doesn't look good. Between the anti-incumbent sentiment in the country, the ire the nation has towards congressional Democrats, and the constituents the so-called Blue Dogs lied to the Democrats could face a serious drubbing this November. The Cook Political Report's last numbers that I saw showed a significant shift in the House, with the GOP retaking it, and some heartbreakers in the Senate that will, at the very least, narrow the numbers. In short, November is going to turn this president into a eunuch. Barry will be forced to work with the GOP legitimately in an even-handed and honest fashion, or he'll be relegated to lame duck status.

Publius II

News for the day

2010-06-08T10:59:00.000-07:00

Normally, I'd focus on one topic for a post, and leave it up for the day. However, I've decided to make a slight change in that. See, I'm a tad busy right now. I'm in the middle of writing a novel, and I need to focus a little more on that. But I don't want to neglect you, the reader, and I feel just simply putting up one post is doing exactly that. So, consider this your morning briefing.

First up, I'd like to say a couple things about the old witch that retired yesterday after she was dropped by her agency as a client. Neither of us are shedding tears that the Anti-Semitic old buzzard is gone. As far as we're concerned, she should have retired a couple decades ago. I remember first seeing Helen Thomas berating President Reagan's press secretary, Larry Speakes, over the Iran-Contra affair. We also will never forget the day that Tony Snow slammed the door on the Anti-Semitic old hag when she was criticizing the US's actions during the Israeli/Lebanon War in 2006. Good riddance to bad rubbish, and by all means Helen, DLTDHYWTGLSY. (I'd be remiss if I didn't note that a few of her colleagues weren't thrilled with her outspoken nature and apparent lack of objectivity. Of course, that's almost a pot and kettle moment, no?)

Second, Barry seems to be getting a tad angry over the criticism he's taking over the Gulf oil spill. (To be fair, he could've done something sooner, but he was too busy playing golf and having his entertainment nights at the White House to really give a rat's @$$ about a massive oil spill.) Last night he was interviewed by Matt Lauer and let this part of the exchange fly:

I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.

Sorry Barry, but unlike you, the talking heads were all over this spill from "Day One." Most talking heads, and your looney tree-hugging special interests, were screaming at you to do something. In fact, one Day One, Mark Levin reminded listeners that under the Clean Water Act (passed by Congress, and signed by President Nixon that would've allowed Barry to federalize the spill, and begin clean-up) he was mandated to take action. But he didn't. Instead, he played the blame game, which is often the case in DC politics. He has blamed British Petroleum. He has blamed Governor Bobby Jindal for being a pain in his backside. He has blamed everyone except himself. It must be hard to kick that ass when one's head is so far up it.

Third, It's primary day across the country. Well, at least it's some serious primaries that people have been keeping a close eye on. And there's the run-off in Arkansas where it appears that Lt. Gov. Bill Halter might actually take out Blanch Lincoln. Again, good riddance. In California, the primaries are on who will have the honor of taking on Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown in November. Good luck to Meg Whitman. She can take out Governor Moonbeam Brown (he was a former governor, for those keeping track of history), and Good luck to either Chuck Devore or Carly Fiorina in their efforts to knock off Boxer. And good luck to Niki Haley in South Carolina. Forget the mudslinging crap coming from her opponents. She's leading her GOP opponents by close to 20 points. Kudos to all of the Nevada candidates, and whoever manages to win the primary -- Sharron Angle, Sue Lowden, or Danny Tarkanian -- Godspeed in removing Harry Reid from the US Senate. All in all, today will be an interesting day in America's political landscape, and hopefully on that has Democrats wetting their pants over who they'll have to face.

Fourth, Nancy Pelosi made an absolute fool of herself yesterday with a speech. See, she not only had to deal with a bunch of hecklers, criticizing her over a host of issues, but she decided to pull out the big guns and blame Republicans for the lack of action on the BP oil spill, and the outrageous deficits being run up by Congress. Um, Nancy, you and your cronies have been in charge of Congress since January of last year. Kind of hard to put the blame at the feet of the MINORITY party, don't you think?

Lastly, The Politico is reporting that Barry is reshaping the federal judiciary with an "unprecedented number" of female and minority nominees. Again, this shows the complete lack of attention the president has to the American electorate. The public doesn't give a rat's @$$ about the number of minority jurists on the federal bench; they want competent jurists that follow the rule of law, the US Constitution, and don't attempt to rewrite the bloody thing to suit social needs. In other words, they want originalist-minded jurists. They don't want judges that see things in the Constitution that aren't there. So, Barry can pat himself on the back for nominating minorities, but the public won't be pleased by his picks. All we need to do is look at his Supreme Court picks to see he clearly is pushing an agenda of judicial activism and social justice. Neither have a damn thing to do with interpreting the highest law in the land.

Publius II

Former GOP backstabber now reveals he's "very lonely"

2010-06-02T09:28:00.001-07:00

Who is this? Charlie Crist, that's who.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist says it is “very lonely” running as an Independent.

Since he quit his party, Crist says he has discovered that people he thought were friends turned out to be only Republican friends who dropped Crist after he left the GOP.

Gee Charlie, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you lied, and stabbed the party in the back, would it? After all, you did tell voters you wouldn't run as an Independent and then less than a month later you reneged on that promise.

Crist has lost so many campaign staffers that his sister is now running his third-party effort.

“When you’re not affiliated with a party, it can be very lonely, particularly initially,” Crist told The Hill in an hourlong phone interview.

Still, he insists he has no regrets about his decision, and offered criticism for the GOP activists who took a stand against him after he supported President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.

“It just became increasingly apparent to me that a segment of the party was drifting so far to the right that it just wasn’t a place where I felt comfortable anymore,” Crist said.

Whoa. Just a second there, pal. You got the endorsement of the NRSC. And as to the stimulus argument, the GOP has been virtually lock-step together in opposing the federal funds being wasted by this administration. Those funds were supposed to have eased this recession, and they haven't. They were supposed to go for the creation of jobs, and they haven't. These funds haven't been spent wisely at all, and most of it is going straight to Barry's cronies who worked to get him elected. What's so extreme, so "far to the right" about opposing federal tax dollars being misspent?

“That level of acrimony and bitterness is what frustrates people today. There is this focus on being loyal to a party over the people, and it’s just wrong,” Crist said.

Crist won’t say which party he will caucus with in the Senate, if he is elected. When asked if he still considers himself a Republican, however, his answer is clearer: “I’m an Independent. I’ve changed my registration.”

That's Crist-speak for "I'll caucus with whichever party kisses my @$$." I'm serious, folks. Charlie Crist cares about one thing in this world -- himself. He proved that by breaking his promise to voters to run as a Republican. He proved it when he refused to give back campaign donations breaking a promise made just sixteen days prior.

Voters in Florida have seen Crist for what he is: a two-faced, backstabbing political hack that will say and do whatever he has to to get elected. Charlie Crist is lonely not because his "loyal" supporters abandoned him. He's lonely because he's burned so many damn bridges in Florida that even his most loyal supporters are fed up with him, his ego, and his antics. When he loses, and make no mistake he will lose, he's going to blame everyone around him. Instead of pointing fingers at others, maybe Charlie should take a look in the mirror. He should also do the voters in Florida a huge favor, and bow out of the race.

Finish out your term as governor Charlie. Shut up, and fade into obscurity. Don't worry. You'll still get noted in history; a footnote, mind you. You'll be remembered not as an also-ran, but as a never-was.

Publius II

ADDENDUM: It's actually a side note, and doesn't really affect Charlie Crist. (Well, unless he had a hand in this, that is.) Jim Greer, Charlie Crist's handpicked Florida GOP chairman, was arrested this morning:

The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party was arrested Wednesday, officials said, though they did not release the charges and there was no immediate word on whether they were linked to a probe of his finances.

Jim Greer, who had been handpicked to lead the state GOP by Gov. Charlie Crist, was arrested at his home near Orlando, Seminole County authorities said. …

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has been investigating Greer since an audit found he awarded himself and his executive director a fundraising contract that paid them about $200,000.

The department declined to comment ahead of a news conference scheduled for later Wednesday morning.

Greer owned 60 percent of a corporation set up to raise money for the party and former party executive director Delmar Johnson owned the other 40 percent. That corporation got a 10 percent commission on money it brought in, the audit found.

HT to Captain Ed who notes that both Greer and Johnson are close allies to Charlie Crist. That fact, alone, should have Florida law enforcement taking a closer look at their ties to Crist just in case he might be caught up in this investigation.

Publius II

Say it ain't so!: More Census fraud

2010-06-02T08:44:00.001-07:00

On the heels of my post yesterday citing James O'Keefe's investigative report on Census payroll fraud in New Jersey comes this report from Shaughn Adeleye at Big Government about more Census payroll fraud, this time in Louisiana:

From May 3rd to May 8th of this year, I worked for the United States Census Bureau in Lafayette, Louisiana. With the aid of a hidden camera, I witnessed and captured evidence of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars–one systemic failure after another of this a Constitutionally mandated entity during a time of great recession and high unemployment.

The training course consisted of four three-hour days and one eight-hour day. I was paid for a total of 20.75 hours, 3.5 of which I did not work. I was paid with your money, money that was stolen from you.

On multiple occasions I was given three 15-minute breaks over the course of three hours and was instructed to fill out false ending times. When I confronted the supervisor about the discrepancy, she said she was just “giving us this time” and told me “I think you’re worrying over nothing.” At any business, this would be theft.

We were also coached to indicate government phone numbers were in fact our personal cell phone numbers (a blatant lie) in order to prevent people from calling and harassing us.

When I addressed what seemed to be a discrepancy on my form, I was told to not worry about it: “As long as you don’t have any major felonies or your fingerprints don’t come back as jack the ripper, you’ll be fine.” And yet sex offenders and rapists find a way to squeeze through the government filter. If a business hired this way, they would be held criminally liable for the actions of their employees.

I had a payroll supervisor tell me not to worry about having been paid for hours I did not work: “I think you are just making a big deal out of it… I would just throw it away.” Yet within a few minutes I was told it was an offense worthy of termination.

I resigned prior to doing any of the enumeration work door-to-door. There have been other reports around the nation of the systemic waste and abuse on the part of the United States Census. The nation sees it for what it is. It’s the same continual waste of taxpayer funds in a time of need, the fraud that frolics freely through our political landscape, and corruption that would rather see us silent and submissive. The media will say that all government steals, is inefficient, and wasteful, but during this time of budgetary crisis, when everyone else is asked to tighten their belts, Obama’s Census gets to lie, cheat, and steal as much as it can get away with. Obama moved control of the census to directly report to the White House, and yet the quality is dreadful. No one is accountable, no one takes any responsibility, and the media yawns while as much as a billion dollars is wasted.

This is what’s wrong with America.

Mr. Adeleye is quite correct. Since the Census was moved to the White House, it has been nothing more than a barrel of waste and abuse. But are we really surprised? After all, this is the most inept, incompetent, and hyper-partisan presidential administration since Jimmy Carter. (The only difference between Carter and Barry is that Carter didn't adhere to the unions as much as Barry has.)

And where is Congress? They are, after all, the body that should be doing the oversight on the Census. The Census may be routed through the White House, but it's Congress that ultimately spends the money to run the Census. Where are the watchers? This is preposterous to see the Census handled in this fashion, wasting our hard-earned dollars.

Additionally, with the discovery of this fraud, eyebrows should be raised when it comes to the data collected. After all, if these people can't manage their funds properly, then it stands to reason that they're not handling the data properly either. If anyone else is running an undercover operation like the one done by James O'Keefe and Shaughn Adeleye, don't quit after the training. Document everything that happens with the payroll, but we also need to see if supervisors are manipulating the data collected.

Let's see if we can blow this wide open. Payroll fraud is one thing, and heads should roll. But if it's discovered that data is being tainted by Census workers, then there should be criminal prosecution as well. Those in the administration that are overseeing the Census should be dragged in front of Congress for hearings into the malfeasance being perpetuated by Census workers.

Publius II

James O'Keefe strike again!

2010-06-01T11:17:00.001-07:00

You all remember him, right? His investigative journalist pieces that crucified and crushed ACORN are legendary. He and Hannah Giles exposed ACORN for the corrupt organization that it is. (Yes, ACORN has reconstituted itself under a new banner. In California they are The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. In New York they are New York Communities for Change. And ACORN itself was renamed Community Organizations International. Thanks to Mr. O'Keefe's work, ACORN is dead, but not gone.)

Today, Mr. O'Keefe gives everyone a head's up on another story. This one involves the US Census in New Jersey. It's a story about the fraud going on behind the scenes there with the tax money we send to Washington, DC:

On April 27, 2010, I got a job with the United States Census Bureau in New Jersey. With a hidden camera, I caught four Census supervisors encouraging enumerators to falsify information on their time sheets. Over the course of two days of training, I was paid for four hours of work I never did. I was told to take a 70 minute lunch break, was given an hour of travel time to drive 10 minutes, and was told to leave work at 3:30pm. I resigned prior to doing any data collection but confronted Census supervisors who assured me, “no one is going to be auditing that that level,” and “nobody is going to be questioning it except for you.” Another Census supervisor only said he’d adjust my pay after I gave him a letter recanting my hours.

As to whether this is an “isolated incident” or if there are more Census videos showing more waste, fraud, and corruption, we’ll let you take a wild guess.

Given the fact that the Census is run by the federal government, this is hardly a surprise. Additionally, I doubt that this is an isolated incident. The nonchalant attitude about auditing not being done at the "street" level isn't surprising either. Washington, DC seems to have made a career out of wasting taxpayer dollars.

The downside of his reporting is that it doesn't deal with actually taking the data as a Census worker, or if there was any fraudulent tweaking of said data. Granted, this story is a fairly big one, especially if he can add more to this story, but it would've been a helluva lot bigger if he caught senior Census workers/supervisors fraudulently changing the data collected by other Census workers.

I'd love to see how far this story goes. His last series of stories brought down a corrupt community organizing group. Time will tell if the federal government audits it's actions, and deals with those who are wasting our money and committing fraud. My guess, as this story applies solely to New Jersey, a few Census supervisors are likely to be fired.

And this isn't the only story of Census fraud. There is this infamous story from 25 May 2010. It involves the Census cooking employment books to give the president some room on the unemployment numbers:

Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.

The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.

Below, I have a couple more readers who worked for Census 2010 and have tales to tell.

But first, this much we know.

Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.

Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.

One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor. (I've been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)

Here's a note from a Census worker -- this one from Manhattan:

"John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.

"I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.

"I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.

"A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.

"Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M."

And here's another:

"John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) just like Ms. Naomi Cohn from your article.

"I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.

"In short, we had a "checkers checking checkers" quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).

"I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.

"On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was 'terminated.' She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.

"I did get two days' pay and I am sure the 'late people' got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. I am totally convinced that the Census work could be very easily done by the US Postal Service.

"When I was trying to look for an address or had a question about a building, I would ask the postman on the beat. They knew the history of the route and can expand in detail who moved in or out etc. I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full.

"I am not surprised that you can't get any answers from Census staff; I found there were very few people who knew the big picture. M.G."

This is our tax dollars at work, folks. The Census is an important function of the federal government. Forget the federal money states get, and think more about the representation in Congress. This is how we determine that enumeration. And this administration, backed by bureaucratic red tape, is treating it like it treats everything else -- they act like an absentee landlord unfazed by the problems, but thrilled to be the focus of attention. I swear, based on these two stories, the Census appears to be as incompetent and narcissistic as the president is.

Publius II

Memorial Day 2010

2010-05-31T11:52:00.002-07:00

For those that understand what this day means, it is a reminder of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to preserve, protect, and defend this great nation. This is the day set aside so that we may honor their memories and that sacrifice. It is the ultimate price to lay one's life down for his nation, his family, and his friends. The men that have served this nation, and given their last full measure deserve the respect and honor of a grateful nation. The nation can never repay the debt we owe these men and women, but we can attempt to repay a little bit of it when we remember them each year on this day.

God Bless each and every one of them for giving their all so we may remain free.

Marcie

Team Barry doesn't have time to deal with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico ...

2010-05-26T10:19:00.001-07:00

... but he has plenty of time to do a whirlwind fundraising tour for Democrats in California, especially for Senator Barbara Boxer:

President Barack Obama began a 19-hour sweep into the Bay Area on Tuesday night to raise money for Democrats and visit a Fremont solar plant that has become a poster child for his administration's stimulus bill.

Obama attended a series of fundraisers for Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is facing a fierce battle in the fall to win a fourth term. It was his second trip to California in as many months to assist the liberal Democrat.

"We've got a lot on our plate right now, so I don't travel for just anybody," Obama told Democratic donors Tuesday night at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel. "But when it comes to Barbara Boxer, I'm a lot like you: When she calls and says she needs help, we're gonna give her some help."

HT to Hugh Hewitt for that story, and I'd like to point out that there isn't one mention in the story about Barry doing a damn thing about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It's now Day 36 since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, and millions of gallons of oil began flooding the Gulf. The New York Times has an interactive map showing the extent of the spill as of 24 May.

Governor Bobby Jindal is fighting mad that the federal response has been beyond slow to act. In fact, he's willing to to go to jail, if that's what it takes, to build the barriers he's been screaming for since the slick occurred. His fishing economy is wrecked, thanks to the slow response from Team Barry. The Army Corps of Engineers has to approve of the permits to build the barriers he's proposing, but they're too busy studying the environmental impact of putting those barriers up.

HELLLOOOOO? What about the environmental impact of millions of barrels in the Gulf, washing up on the Louisiana coast, the Florida coast, etc. It's clear that Team Barry doesn't give a rat's ass about the oil slick, but, by God, when Barbara Boxer calls, he leaps into action.

This is a disgusting display of incompetence and partisanship that should have every voter in America calling for the president's political skull on a platter. The press and liberal sycophants savaged President Bush for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina (though they forget that legally he couldn't do one damn thing until Governor Kathleen Blanco opened up her inept yap, and asked for help) but they're not going after Barry. President Bush was on top of the hurricane before it's second landfall -- the one that devastated New Orleans -- and federal response was on the ground 48 hours after Katrina had savaged the Gulf coast region. Barry waited twelve days to even take notice of the spill, and now, 36 days later, he's throwing tantrums and hissy-fits over stopping the flow of oil into the Gulf.

This spill is Barry's Katrina. He owns this. And his actions -- jetting off to San Francisco for Democrat fundraisers -- shows everyone exactly what he thinks of this nation when a disaster strikes it. He doesn't care. His frustration is apparent and that frustration comes from the fact that he is in over his head. This is what happens when the nation elects inept, narcissistic, and ill-prepared leaders.

Publius II

The North and the South are no longer speaking to one another

2010-05-25T10:46:00.000-07:00

No, not here in America. This North/South dust-up is between the two Koreas. In response to the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, and after an investigation pointed all fingers at the North the South announced on Monday that they were ceasing trade relations with the North. Today, the North responded by severing all ties to the South:

KCNA said the North was also expelling all South Korean workers from a jointly-run factory north of the border.

The move comes after an international report blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship.

Pyongyang denies it torpedoed the Cheonan near the inter-Korean maritime border on 26 March, killing 46 sailors.

South Korea says it plans to refer North Korea to the UN Security Council, and is seeking a unified international response to the incident. 'Puppet army gangs'

Tuesday's KCNA reports announcing the severing of all ties - including communications - said the North was also banning South Korean ships and planes from its territorial waters and airspace.

"The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea... formally declares that from now on it will put into force the resolute measures to totally freeze the inter-Korean relations, totally abrogate the agreement on non-aggression between the North and the South and completely halt the inter-Korean cooperation," KCNA reported.

Pyongyang has also accused South Korea of trespassing in its waters.

In a warning to South Korea's navy, a newsreader on North Korean state television (KRT) said: "South Korean puppet army gangs have been recently trespassing our territorial waters without restraint.

"They have conducted provocative acts which severely irritate us, by making dozens of warships intrude upon our waters from 14 to 24 May."

The newsreader said that if this "deliberate provocation" continued, the North would "put into force practical military measures to defend its waters".

As Captain Ed notes, no one wants to see the Korean War start back up again. (Remember, these two nations are under a cease-fire; no peace treaty was signed, and neither nation surrendered.) As of right now the North seems to be rattling its saber towards the South, and Kim Jong-Il might want to step lightly right now. Ban Ki-moon is urging toe UN Security Council to act against North Korea, and the US has stated it will be conducting maneuvers with the South Koreans shortly. (No, we're not holding our breath on the UN's response to this as the Security Council has been reluctant to deal with North Korea, as a whole, but tougher sanctions could ratchet up the pressure on the North to cool their heels.)

The North desperately needs the South. South Korea has been sending food and humanitarian aid to the North for some time now, staving off the potential collapse of the country. Kim Jong-Il already has a starving populace, and he has been the target of at least three coup attempts. The last one was reported back in 1998, and it involved his 6th army corps. Why? Because his military was starving, as well. So that could be a possible scenario if tensions continue to grow, and Kim doesn't back down. No doubt he'll be appealing to China for assistance soon enough, but back in 2006 Chinese officials voiced sentiments that China might be willing to back a coup removing Kim Jong-Il from power. So, Kim is still stuck between a rock and a hard place. He can't afford a new, armed conflict because we would back the South. Additionally, if China backs our play, Kim will have more headaches than he knows what to do with.

Personally, I think a lot of the bluster from the North is simply hot air. The South's investigation of the sinking of their ship was quite conclusive. It was torpedoed, or it hit a mine. Either way, the North is responsible for this provocation. It'd be a lot simpler if Kim simply apologized to the South, but pride and hubris are keeping him from doing that.

Do I see much coming from this stand-off? Not right now. But the ball isn't back in the South's court. It's still stuck in Kim's court, and cutting off his nation's nose to spite it's face wasn't exactly the smartest diplomatic move.

Publius II

Throwing down the gauntlet

2010-05-19T08:17:00.002-07:00

As of the beginning of May 73% of those polled by Pew supported Arizona's new immigration law. Rasmussen reports that 55% of the public would support such a bill enacted in their state, and 69% support the law's provisions that allow law enforcement officers to enforce the federal laws. (The Rasmussen poll was conducted May 14-15.) So, it's pretty clear that the people of this nation have sounded off, and they like what Arizona did. As residents of Arizona, we applaud Governor Jan Brewer for signing this bill into law. (If you're like the LA City Council, President Barack Obama, DHS Secretary Janet "Incompetano" Napolitano, or Attorney General Eric Holder, and you haven't read the law, you can download it here. It's 17 pages long, and could be read, easily, while you're at lunch.)

So, what's the point of this post? Well, as you all know the LA City Council acted "stupidly," and voted to boycott the state of Arizona:

The City Council voted Wednesday to boycott Arizona businesses, making Los Angeles the largest city to take such action to protest the state's tough new law targeting illegal immigration.

The 13-1 vote, which came after emotional discussion in which several council members recounted their immigrant ancestors, was largely symbolic since only a small percentage of the city's business dealings are affected.

"An immigrant city, an international city, (Los Angeles) needs to have its voice heard," Councilman Ed Reyes said. "It is crucial this great city take a stand."

Of the $58 million in business the city of Los Angeles does with Arizona, only about $7.7 million could legally be dropped. So the boycott was largely symbolic, and akin to a child throwing a temper-tantrum because it didn't get the toy it wanted. (Additionally, the LA City Council apparently doesn't read the laws in the state of California because California has a law that is very similar to our own law, and it's a tad more strict as it makes illegal the so-called "sanctuary cities" like San Francisco.)

Needless to say, some of our lawmakers have gotten sick of this crap. Gary Pierce, one of the commissioners on the Arizona Corporation Commission has penned a letter to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

We applaud Commissioner Pierce for this move, and unlike the LA City Council's mostly-empty threat to boycott Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission isn't kidding around. Under no circumstance should the state of Arizona be brow-beat to turn a blind eye to it's citizens. California has its fence constructed, and their illegal alien problem isn't nearly the problem that Arizona has. Additionally, they're not dealing with a drug war on their border that is spilling into their state where citizens and law enforcement are being shot and killed.

The federal government has dropped the ball badly on this problem, and we acted in our state's best interests. The state of California acted years ago by enacting 834B of the California Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

California did as Arizona did years ago in enacting a law giving state law enforcement the ability to deal with illegal aliens, so as far as the LA City Council goes, they should rename themselves "hypocrisy." What is this, enforcement for me, but none for thee? I think not. And I'd also remind the LA City Council that the WaPo uncovered a 2002 DOJ memo that backs up the ability for state law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration laws; a fact that could make it difficult for Barry & Company to challenge the law in federal court.

This garbage has gone on long enough. The LA City Council has worked hard to make @$$es out of themselves, and now they're the laughingstock of the nation. Citizens in America, for the most part, support what Arizona has done. Lawmakers huffing and puffing about this would be wise to pay attention to the people. After all, we, the people can see November from our houses.

Publius II

An imaginary GOP dilemma

2010-05-18T11:18:00.002-07:00

The nomination of Elena Kagan has, in some respects, presented the GOP with an interesting situation. On one hand, they can go through all the steps in the confirmation process, acting more like adults than the Left has with other nominations (such as Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito). Or they can stand firm in opposition to Ms. Kagan, and attempt to stop her. Byron York discusses this puzzling affair today in the Washington Examiner. (HT to Hot Air's Headlines)

There's an intense debate going on behind the scenes among Republicans involved in the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination. It's about whether the GOP should to try to stop Kagan, because that's what Democrats would do in the same situation, or whether Republicans should concede that Kagan is qualified and vote to confirm her because the president has the right to expect the Senate to approve qualified nominees.

The debate began almost immediately after Kagan stood next to Barack Obama at the White House announcement May 10. In an interview with MSNBC, Kenneth Starr, the former judge, independent counsel and solicitor general, urged the Senate to confirm Kagan, whom he called "so smart and so able."

"President Obama has chosen someone who is very qualified," Starr concluded.

[First, I disagree with Mr. Starr. Yes, she is educated, and yes she is smart, but I'd hardly call her qualified. Her past views regarding the First and Second Amendments clearly shows, at least to me, that she doesn't understand either amendment, or the rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. In my opinion, to sit on the high court and deal with matters concerning the Constitution, one should at least have a plenary understanding of the document, and that which was written 233 years ago.]

A few days later, former Bush appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging that Kagan -- a friend from their days together at Harvard Law School -- be confirmed. (At the same time, Estrada pointed out that Kagan is without doubt a liberal, no matter the spin about her supposed centrism.) "Elena Kagan is an impeccably qualified nominee," Estrada wrote. "[She] possesses a formidable intellect, an exemplary temperament and a rare ability to disagree with others without being disagreeable."

Estrada's letter resonated among Republicans because to many in the GOP, he is the living symbol of a conservative judicial nominee mistreated by Senate Democrats. Smart, credentialed, with a fine record and impressive personal story, he was nominated by George W. Bush for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals in May 2001. Democrats blocked his nomination and ultimately resorted to a filibuster against him in 2003. In September of that year, Estrada withdrew his nomination. (Despite their friendship, Kagan, then a law professor at Harvard, didn't write a letter on Estrada's behalf.)

[Before anyone steps up in an attempt to crucify Mr. Estrada, they need to take into consideration that he wrote the letter, without any prompting by Ms. Kagan, on her behalf. This was a favor to a friend that wasn't asked for, but he felt it was necessary, despite how he was treated by Senate Democrats during President Bush's terms in office. His endorsement of Ms. Kagan is literally no different from Sarah Palin's endorsement of John McCain in his Senate reelection bid. People need to remember that these sorts of favors happen all the time, and while we may disagree with them, it doesn't change the person who passed along the favor.]

Today, the conservative expressions of support for Kagan have disappointed a number of Republicans who want a shootout over the nomination. They fully expect Democrats to cite that support ("Even Ken Starr says ...") over and over again during Kagan's confirmation hearings.

But the bigger problem conservatives see is that the pro-Kagan statements put Republicans at a disadvantage before the confirmation even begins. "What Miguel and Ken are trying to demonstrate is that the president deserves to have his nominees confirmed as long as they are qualified," says one GOP Senate aide. "The problem is the Democrats don't do that, and so you unilaterally disarm."

[That aide is correct, and this is where the crux of the GOP's dilemma comes from: The Democrats will cite those that are friendly to Republicans as examples of those supporting her based on her qualifications. The problem is, and Republicans will have to find a way to do this, is that until the hearings start they can't make an argument over her qualifications. And while the president is afforded his constitutionally-mandated powers to nominate federal officers, the Senate still has a job to do. They still need to vet her, and her hearings will be where the fight takes place. If she is qualified, she'll pass out of committee handily. If not, then there will be a fight.]

Indeed, among Republicans "unilateral disarmament" has become shorthand for the divide between two competing ways of approaching the Kagan nomination. "This debate is the people who have a traditional way of looking at these procedural questions -- 'This is the way it's been done and this is the way to do it' -- versus the people who say the Democrats have changed the rules and we should respond in kind," the aide says.

That's not an exaggeration. Regardless of all the talk about a nominee's qualifications, some leading Democrats have for years worked to establish a new, openly ideological standard for judicial confirmations. In 2001, Sen. Charles Schumer, one of Kagan's top supporters, held a hearing titled, "Should Ideology Matter?" His position was (and is) that senators should reject qualified nominees simply because of their views on issues. Schumer would like to put an end to the idea that the Senate owes the president confirmation of qualified nominees.

"This unwillingness to openly examine ideology has sometimes led senators who oppose a nominee to seek out non-ideological disqualifying factors, like small financial improprieties from long ago, to justify their opposition," Schumer said at the 2001 hearing. "This, in turn, has led to an escalating war of 'gotcha' politics." Schumer's solution was for the Senate to dump nominees who hold views unacceptable to Charles Schumer.

[Schumer is a moron. Ideology -- political ideology -- should have nothing to do with these hearings. If one is a self-described liberal, but upholds the rule of law, and the belief that the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says, then there shouldn't be any opposition to such a nominee. Our general dislike of Ms. Kagan has nothing to do with her political ideology. It has everything to do with her judicial philosophy -- how she views the Constitution, and the limits of a Supreme Court justice's powers. If she is an activist, believing in the rule of judicial fiat (and her past views paint that sort of picture) then she shouldn't be confirmed. And another thing that should be taken into account is the fact that two sitting SCOTUS jurists were rather unimpressed by her when she argued the Citizen's United case before the Supreme Court, and they were equally frustrated with her apparent inability to answer their questions.]

Over at NRO's Bench Memos Ed Whelan has a solution to the dilemma that was offered by Eugene Volokh yesterday:

"It seems to me that the sensible thing for Republicans to do is to use the Kagan nomination as a means of persuading the public that the Republicans’ vision of the Constitution is sounder than the Obama Administration’s vision of the Constitution.… So the Republicans could talk about (say) gun rights, the use of foreign law, same-sex marriage, the use of religious symbolism in government speech, and so on — not with an eye towards to defeating Kagan in the Summer, but to defeating the Democrats in November. That, I think, is a strategy that might actually succeed, and might actually help advance conservative political and legal ideals."

Now, why take this approach? Because it comes down to simple numbers, folks. the Democrats have the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they have fifty-nine guaranteed votes in the Senate. And mark my words, there will be Republican defectors that will vote for her confirmation. Last week the WaPo reported that both Scott Brown and Susan Collins have "warmed" to the idea of her being confirmed. So with that in mind, the Democrats have at least sixty-one votes, and there is no way to block her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Does this mean we should just give up? Not hardly. I recall a post up at SCOTUS Reports where they quote from a recent article by Rick Garrett:

Rick Garnett, professor of law and associate dean of University of Notre Dame Law School, and former law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist: “Elections matter, and the election of President Obama has turned out to matter a great deal for the future decisions and direction of Supreme Court. With the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan, the President has taken a significant step toward reshaping the Court and its work for generations. No one should think that this nomination is inconsequential, or that it changes little because it involves merely replacing one liberal justice with another. A conservative might someday win back the White House, but any future Republican president will be playing defense with his or her Supreme Court selections. With his second Supreme Court pick — and, to be clear, he will almost certainly have more — the President is on the way to having had more influence over the Court than any President since Reagan, and perhaps even Roosevelt. Future elections might undo some of the President’s policies, but his more liberal views about the Constitution, the powers of the national government, and the role of unelected federal judges, are now being locked in securely.”

And then there is the laundry list of concerns from Ed Whelan regarding Ms. Kagan.

Elections do have consequences, and we seem to reaping quite a bit of them right now. But just because Barry won, and he has the right to nominate federal officers doesn't mean they should all be confirmed. This is an ideal time to truly make a distinction between the GOP's view of America, and of the Constitution (as Eugene Volokh as offered), and the Democrats. Make no mistake. The Democrats will win this fight, but it could cost them the war in November.

Publius II

If I were president, and Eric Holder was my AG ...

2010-05-14T09:08:00.000-07:00

... I'd call him into the Oval Office, tell him to have his resignation on my desk in one hour, and his desk cleaned out in two hours. (Actually, if I were president, I never would have had such an incompetent fool as my Attorney General.) What did he do now? Why am I so steamed about the Attorney General? I'm ticked at him for the same reason why I'm ticked at a lot of critics of Arizona's new immigration law. Like them, he admits he hasn't read the law:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

So, in other words, he's taking the word of newscasters and pundits that, like himself, haven't read the law. He's taking the word of idiots like Keith Olbermann and Chris "Tingles" Matthews, who seem to like espousing their opinions, but present little in the way of facts.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

I realize that our new law is a tad lighter than what the morons in DC are used to reading (TEN pages as opposed to the 1000 page-plus legislation that Congress, and the administration, don't read), but it isn't that hard, folks. I have it right here in front of me. It's pretty cut and dry, especially with the clarification law that was passed just a couple short days after Governor Jan Brewer signed the initial law.

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

Mr. Holder, you're fired. That's what I'd tell him today. I can find a more competent Attorney General by looking under the nearest rock. Hell, I'd appoint the rock instead because it's probably got more brains than Holder does.

And Andy McCarthy hits the nail on the head -- Eric Holder is basically profiling the state or Arizona, and it's law enforcement officers:
(HT to Captain Ed Morrissey)

He hasn't read the Arizona immigration law, even though reading the law is the basic duty of any lawyer (let alone the U.S. Attorney General) who is called on to assess a legal situation.

Thus, he hasn't got reasonable suspicion that Arizonans are violating the Constitution, even though reasonable suspicion is the basic investigative standard we expect law-enforcement to satisfy before officials harass Americans with stepped up scrutiny.

And we know he has a bias because he told us, unabashedly, that he thinks Americans are "cowards" on matters of race.

[I dug up the link above. It is not included in Mr. McCarthy's comments.]

Think about it this way: If a police officer, without taking elementary investigative steps to inform himself about the facts of a situation, and thus without reasonable suspicion, simply assumed a person must be guilty of wrongdoing based on the police officer's avowed prejudice, what would Eric Holder call it?

Eric Holder is an idiot. He's also a race-baiter, and is inherently racist, himself. How else can we describe a man who basically calls an entire state racist, but lets the New Black Panthers slide on charges of voter intimidation? This administration has been using race politics since being put in office. The president's supporters have accused anyone who doesn't support Barry of being racist, even though I know of no one who has ever even mentioned his race. We have complaints with his policies and agenda, not his race.

Before Eric Holder speaks up next time on an issue like this, it might be smarter for him to actually do the research and footwork on the issue in question. It'd get him a bit farther, and avoid the lambasting that he rightly deserves.

Publius II

UN experts condemn new Arizona law

2010-05-12T09:26:00.001-07:00

The UN doesn't exactly have a bang-up track record when it comes to human rights. In fact, some have started raising a stink about the UN's own pitiful record. (There are numerous stories -- Story after story after story after story after story -- available on the Internet detailing the sex abuse scandals perpetrated by UN peacekeepers, and the attempts by the UN to cover them up.)

But now this ineffective, corrupt, and outdated organization is b*tching about Arizona's new immigration law. And just like every other critic out there, it's apparent they haven't read the bloody thing:

Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.

The basic human rights regulations, signed by the U.S. and many other nations, regard issues such as discrimination and the terms under which a person can be detained, the experts said.

"A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin," the experts said.

Arizona's new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration has provisions that include requiring police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status, if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

In America, critics have said the law violates the U.S. Constitution's provisions against unreasonable search and seizure and will result in racial profiling of Hispanics. Supporters deny that and say the law will pressure illegal immigrants to leave the country on their own.

In their statement, the six U.N. experts said: "States are required to respect and ensure the human rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without discrimination."

"Relevant international standards require that detention be used only as an exceptional measure, justified, narrowly tailored and proportional in each individual case, and that it be subject to judicial review," the experts said.

The law could result in potential discrimination against Mexicans, indigenous peoples and other minorities in Arizona, the U.N. officials said.

They also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.

The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are

--Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants Jorge Bustamante of Mexico;

--Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance Githu Muigai of Kenya;

--Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people James Anaya of the United States;

--Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights Farida Shaheed of Pakistan;

--Special Rapporteur on the right to education Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica; and

--Independent Expert on minority issues Gay McDougall of the United States.

Let me go point by point here ...

First, I could give a rat's @$$ about the "binding" international standards. Know why? Because the Arizona law reinforces FEDERAL LAW! All this law did was extend to local law enforcement the ability to check on a person's immigration status at their discretion. It's the officer's call as to whether or not they check. They're not told to do it, compelled to do it, and they won't be doing it on everyone they stop. That's especially true if the person in question happens to have ID on them. That is basically what our new law says: IF you have ID, you're OK.

Second, the law specifically forbids police from stopping anyone based solely on perceived ethnicity or race. Period. The police won't be using racial profiling. This law doesn't allow such a thing. And if the UN, along with the rest of the critics, had read the bloody law they'd know this, especially since we're basically backing up US federal law; laws that the federal government hasn't enforced!

Then there's this little tidbit above: "Arizona's new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration has provisions that include requiring police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status ..." That's an outright lie! There is NOTHING in the law "requiring" police officers to do this. Police have the right and ability to check on that if they have reasonable suspicion that the person they have stopped may be here illegally. BUT, the law explicitly states that if the person has a legal ID (driver's license, state-issued ID card, Mexican consular card, Mexican electoral card, passport, etc; basically any valid ID accepted by the state of Arizona) then they're fine. Write them their ticket for the infraction, and they're on their way. They won't be detained.

Fourth, the critics who claim this violates the Fourth Amendment clearly don't understand the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment reads [emphasis mine]:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now because the UN dislikes our Constitution (see the Second Amendment for reason #1 why they don't like it) it's clear that, as in the case of Arizona's new law, they haven't read the US Constitution either. At the very least they don't seem to understand it. The Fourth Amendment precisely refers to the protections against unlawful and unreasonable searches and/or seizures. In other words, the government can't come into our homes with the intent to search and/or seize anything we own without a warrant, based on probable cause. In the case of the new immigration law, that is also distinctively detailed within the provisions of the law. Law enforcement must have probable cause (or reasonable suspicion) that the person in question is here illegally before they can check on their immigration status.

Now I'm going to touch on the other law that these six morons are referring to. There has been another law passed that has quite a few knickers in a twist. That law bans the teaching of certain ethnic studies. What are those studies exactly? The sort perpetuated by La Raza, of course, and they seem to be the main group with their panties in a wad:

After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.

The bill, which passed 32-26 in the state House, had been approved by the Senate a day earlier. It now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer for her signature.

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

Michelle Malkin has done yeoman's work documenting the Reconquista movement perpetuated by groups like La Raza, MECHa and Aztlan. Back in 2008, Ms. Malkin highlighted the details behind a La Raza-backed history class in Tucson. A Tucson high school teacher recounts exactly what was going on in his class with his students:

During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a “teacher of record,” meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.

I was assigned to be a “teacher of record” because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.

Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites. In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used “to keep minorities in their ghettos.”

It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School’s advanced placement courses because their “white teachers” do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.

It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.

It was taught that the Southwest is “Atzlan,” the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants – to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America’s civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.

When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a “racist,” despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for “sellout.”

THIS is the sort of education that is now banned in the state of Arizona. We have no problem touching on other cultures, but we will no longer support, encourage, or condone the sort of education La Raza supports. They teach racial divide. They teach animosity. They teach hostility towards America. They don't teach the real history when it comes to America and Mexico. No, they want to incite hostility, and at times they encourage violence. This is the sort of "ethnic studies" we have ended.

If the UN has a problem with this, tough sh*t. This is America, and we have a right to do what we see fit to protect ourselves. And because the federal government has continuously dropped the ball when it comes to immigration enforcement, the state of Arizona has asserted it's Tenth Amendment rights to take steps to protect the citizens of the state. We have recurring incursions across our Southern border by drug gangs, human smugglers, and even the Mexican military. We're facing a shooting war on our border, and all the federal government can do is yawn about it.

The UN can pound sand. Take their six "experts'" opinions and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. We didn't ask for their opinion, and it's not wanted. I'll tell readers this: When the UN actually starts doing it's job, cleans up it's act, and respects the sovereignty of ALL nations, then we might pay attention to the crap they're shoveling.

Publius II

A world without nukes? Dream on, Barry

2010-05-11T11:20:00.001-07:00

The president has clearly stated he wants a world without nuclear weapons. While on it's face, that seems like a good idea, it's wholly implausible. Mona Charen at National Review calls it naive, and takes the president to task over his pipe dream:

When I was a little girl, at the height of the Cold War, I used to wish, deeply and fervently, that nuclear weapons had never been invented. An accompanying fantasy placed me at the center of world events. Just as the two superpowers were preparing to launch a devastating exchange of nuclear weapons, I would step between the two. Seeing an innocent child, the hard-boiled men of the world would soften and reconsider their terrible course.

In other words, at the age of seven or eight, I was a liberal. As I grew, I came to understand a) that it was not possible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle; and b) that the way to safety lay not in arms control but in strength prudently pursued.

This is a lesson the president has apparently failed to grasp. While nuclear weapons are devastating when used, they do have their uses. People today still criticize the fact we used nuclear weapons on Japan to end World War II without taking into account the primary reason we did drop those bombs. It wasn't to necessarily take life. It was to save lives, namely the lives of US Marines that would end up storming the beaches of Japan that some experts say would have cost us millions is lost lives. (Here is a breakdown of what we could expect with an invasion of Japan, and based on this information President Truman opted to use the A-Bombs to end the war.)

The fact that both the US and Russia had nuclear weapons prevented the world from witnessing a nuclear holocaust. The strategy was called Mutual-Assured Destruction, or MAD, and it kept the world safe for decades. The president should have known this, but it appears he doesn't believe in it, just as his liberal colleagues didn't. Ms. Charen continues:

Liberal approaches to foreign policy continue to rely more on wishful thinking than on realism or maturity. But even in the context of liberalism, President Obama’s recent policy declarations on the matter of nuclear weapons are juvenile and disturbing.

Speaking in Prague, the president declared, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Has the president really thought this through? Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine that all of the existing nuclear powers agreed that their weapons were more of a threat to “peace and security” than they were worth, and voluntarily destroyed them all. Would the world immediately become a safer place? No. It would become far more dangerous. The North Koreans would have lied about destroying their weapons, just as they lied repeatedly, for years, about building them. So, one outcome might be that North Korea would instantly become a superpower. And surely the prospect of becoming nuclear-armed would be all the more enticing to the mullahs of Iran if only North Korea would be in possession of similar weapons. Who would want to live in that world?

“I’m not naïve,” the president continued. “This goal will not be reached quickly. . . . But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can.’” That’s security policy by bumper sticker.

As they say, read it all. It's well worth the read to understand that the president clearly has no clue as to what he's doing with regard to US nuclear policy. That was more than evident when he publicly revealed the total number of nuclear weapons the US possesses. (And yes, there were calls for his impeachment over this revelation because it was a classified secret, and he made the US vulnerable in announcing it. But we all know there's no way in Hell the Democrats would ever impeach him over that; to them he's a hero.)

He says he's not naive, but he couldn't intelligently argue that with any national security or military expert. Ms. Charen takes note of both North Korea and Iran, and the fact that neither nation has played by the rules. Even if all of the peaceful nations of the world gave up their nuclear arms, you know damn well these two regimes won't. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton penned a piece for the 3 May issue of National Review where he outlines not only the problems in the "new START" treaty that Barry wants ratified immediately with regard to Iran and North Korea, but more importantly with regard to Russia. Whether people want to believe it or not, Russia is ascendant once again, and this new treaty will give the Russians a better position while weakening the US nuclear posture. Naivete seems to be the president's strong suit regardless of what he says.

The only nation that will ever disarm itself of nuclear weapons will be America, and all based on a utopian naivete that the Left has been living in for decades. "Oh, if we'd just get rid of our nukes, the world will follow in our footsteps." No, they won't. Poland is already anxious over the fact that Barry has cancelled the missile defense shield that was promised by President Bush, and it was nixed for nothing more than to have Russia quit kvetching at us over it. The missile defense system had the Russians worried, and they should have been. That system was a way to keep our allies under a protective umbrella where they didn't have to worry about the Russians, but also so they wouldn't be concerned with Iran.

See, Iran is close to deploying a long-range missile that has a range that could strike Poland, and other nations in Eastern Europe. Now, as I have often said, Tehran isn't going to play chicken with a couple missiles. They know they'd be wiped off the map should they launch a nuclear strike. But nuclear blackmail isn't out of the question, and that is likely the route Tehran would take. The last thing we need is a nuclear-armed Iran, rattling it's nuclear saber in its region, and against Eastern Europe.

Removing all the nuclear weapons in the world won't make this world safer. It'll make it far more dangerous than it is today. Barry needs to wake up and smell the coffee. A nuclear-armed America keeps the world in check. An America turned into a eunuch by a clueless, childlike, gullible president makes us, and our allies, vulnerable to enemies that are anything but merciful.

Publius II

The Taliban ISN'T on State's terror list? WTF??

2010-05-11T10:29:00.000-07:00

I'd love to explain this away as an oversight, but according to Captain Ed Morrissey this isn't a problem with this administration alone. The Taliban in Afghanistan isn't on it either and this seems to go back to the Bush administration. Five senators have sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton with a demand to know why the Pakistani Taliban isn't on the list, and a request to have them added, ASAP:

Several lawmakers are urging the Obama administration to put the Pakistani Taliban on a State Department terrorism blacklist that would impose sanctions on the group, which officials say is linked to the failed Times Square car bombing.

In a letter Tuesday to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, at least five Democratic senators — including those from New York and New Jersey — asked Tuesday that the group, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, be designated a "foreign terrorist organization." The move would freeze the group's U.S. assets and make it a crime for Americans to offer it material support.

U.S. officials have said the Pakistani Taliban provided financing and training to would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, who is believed to have spent five months in Pakistan preparing for the attack.

The decision by the Bush administration to have neither the Pakistan or Afghanistan Taliban on the State Department's terror list is befuddling, to say the least. We did, after all, go after them and al Qaeda in the wake of the attacks on 11 September. So, if we're engaged in hostilities against the Taliban and al Qaeda, and both utilize terrorism as a tactic in this war, why in the Hell is the Taliban not on the list? All of al Qaeda's affiliates are on the list, and the Taliban sheltered and enabled them. It makes no sense as to why the Taliban isn't there.

Of course one possible explanation could be that coalition forces, aided by the UN, have been trying to open up a dialogue with the Taliban. That might explain why they're not on the list right now, but it doesn't explain why they weren't on it when President Bush was in office. The Taliban is as dangerous as al Qaeda is. They have been fighting coalition and NATO forces in cross-border raids for months. Additionally, it is the Taliban who has been working to undermine the Pakistani government. Back in August of 2009 the Times of India reported on three separate attacks launched by Taliban extremists on Pakistani nuclear facilities. It's insane to think that we can negotiate with these people.

It also makes it difficult with regard to the most recent capture of Faisal Shahzad. As Captain Ed notes, the man is facing numerous charges already including hundreds of charges of attempted murder and terrorism. There's also the possibility that he could be charged with treason, though given this administration that's not likely.

The point of placing such groups on the terror list is so that we can initiate sanctions on the group, put a chokehold on assets and money in the US, and make it illegal for any US citizen to give aid and comfort to them. Granted, that last part wouldn't be hard to do seeing as how it is an enemy belligerent against the US. It would be no different than someone knowingly and willfully giving aid or conducting business with the Iranian regime. The difference is that Iran is a nation whereas the Taliban is an organization.

This needs to change, and pronto. Will Barry do it? Probably not as he is content to reach out and offer a hand to the Taliban in an effort to make peace; that comes no matter how many times they try to chop off that hand. It's clear that this administration dropped the ball on this issue as the previous administration did. Barry can change that, and show the nation he does take this war seriously. But again, I doubt he'll do it.

Publius II

The Kagan announcement: Is anyone really surprised by this?

2010-05-10T12:49:00.001-07:00

I ask that question because since the speculation about who Barry might choose, Elena Kagan has been at the top of the list. (Never once did we think Janet Incompetano would be his pick because, well, she's literally incompetent, folks.) And this morning, Barry didn't surprise anyone by naming her as his choice to replace Justice Stevens:

President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on Monday, declaring the former Harvard Law School dean "one of the nation's foremost legal minds." She would be the court's youngest justice and give it three female members for the first time.

The nomination to replace liberal retiring Justice John Paul Stevens set the stage for a potentially bruising confirmation battle, though mathematically Democrats should be able to prevail in the end.

At 50, Kagan is relatively young for the lifetime post and could help shape the high court's decisions for decades. If confirmed by the Senate, she would become only the fourth female justice in history.

Now the question that arises is "Is she qualified?" Ed Whelan at NRO's Bench Memos blog gives us an answer to that question:

1. I have plenty of respect for Kagan’s intellect and ability, and she deserves considerable credit for her tenure as dean of Harvard law school, including for her generous treatment of conservatives, which has earned her considerable goodwill. But …

2. Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more. In addition to zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. Further, notwithstanding all her years in academia, she has only a scant record of legal scholarship. Kagan flunks her own “threshold” test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee.

3. There is a striking mismatch between the White House’s populist rhetoric about seeking a justice with a “keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people” and the reality of the Kagan pick. Kagan is the consummate Obama insider, and her meteoric rise over the last 15 years—from obscure academic and Clinton White House staffer to Harvard law school dean to Supreme Court nominee—would seem to reflect what writer Christopher Caldwell describes as the “intermarriage of financial and executive branch elites [that] could only have happened in the Clinton years” and that has fostered the dominant financial-political oligarchy in America. In this regard, Kagan’s paid role as a Goldman Sachs adviser is the perfect marker of her status in the oligarchy—and of her unfathomable remoteness from ordinary Americans.

4. Kagan’s record thus manages to replicate the primary supposed defect of the judicial monastery—isolation from the real-world lives of ordinary Americans—without conferring the broader benefits of judicial experience.

5. Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because—as Peter Beinart, the liberal former editor of the New Republic, has written—it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.” In her fervent opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Solomon Amendment, Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.

6. Kagan has argued that the Senate should carefully explore a nominee's views on judicial philosophy generally and on hotly contested constitutional issues in particular. Her argument has special force for someone who has been so guarded about her own views. Indeed, its force is all the greater since Kagan has indulged her own ideological views in the one area, gay rights, in which she has been vocal: as law school dean, Kagan embraced an utterly implausible reading of the Solomon Amendment, and as Solicitor General, she has acted to undermine the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Defense of Marriage Act that she is dutybound to defend.

7. Kagan shows signs of moderation on issues of presidential power and national security. But there’s no basis for hopes that she might secretly harbor conservative legal views on other matters.

8. Kagan’s records from her White House years in the Clinton administration promise to offer important insights into her legal thinking. It makes no sense to schedule her confirmation hearing until it’s clear when those records will be made available.

In other words, she has little in legal writing (strange for a former Dean of Harvard Law), and she generally holds liberal views regarding the Constitution and how to interpret it. So it's easy to assume that Barry is replacing a liberal with another liberal. However, as SCOTUS Reports notes there should be a good deal of concern regarding Ms. Kagan:

Rick Garnett, professor of law and associate dean of University of Notre Dame Law School, and former law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist: “Elections matter, and the election of President Obama has turned out to matter a great deal for the future decisions and direction of Supreme Court. With the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan, the President has taken a significant step toward reshaping the Court and its work for generations. No one should think that this nomination is inconsequential, or that it changes little because it involves merely replacing one liberal justice with another. A conservative might someday win back the White House, but any future Republican president will be playing defense with his or her Supreme Court selections. With his second Supreme Court pick — and, to be clear, he will almost certainly have more — the President is on the way to having had more influence over the Court than any President since Reagan, and perhaps even Roosevelt. Future elections might undo some of the President’s policies, but his more liberal views about the Constitution, the powers of the national government, and the role of unelected federal judges, are now being locked in securely.”

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana: I’m deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS Blog offers up even more insights to Ms. Kagan that seasoned court-watchers should take note of:

Whether they will agree will depend on a number of factors. Kagan’s relatively short paper trail – note the contrast with the nearly two decades of decisions by Sonia Sotomayor – means there is less to review, and thus less time is required prior to the start of hearings. Kagan was also recently confirmed by the same Committee as Solicitor General.

Senate Democrats will prefer to move the process forward quickly for two reasons: so that Kagan is not “left hanging” for nine weeks before she appears before the Committee; and so that the nomination can be moved forward to make room in the calendar for legislative efforts. On the other hand, Republicans, as the opposition, will prefer delay because as more time passes there is a greater chance that something will emerge that justifies defeating (or at least undercuts) the nomination.

Also important will be the speed with which the Administration produces documents – not only the nominee’s questionnaire to the Senate but also the documents it intends to produce from Kagan’s time in the Clinton Administration. A genuine fight over materials could lead to a delay.

Michelle Malkin has a round-up of links about this nomination, and she takes notice of this comment via Twitter: “I love it when the most transparent administration ever picks a nominee because they don’t have much of a paper trail.”

Snarkiness aside, the guy's got a point. Barry has presented a nominee that has less of a paper trail that I do, and I have plenty of friends that tell me I'd be the Constitution's best friend if I were on the high court. (I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I am an originalist, and have probably far more about the Constitution, and the jurisprudence surrounding it, than most of the nominees nominated by liberal/Democrat presidents.)

He chose her because she is so much like her boss as Captain Ed notes in his post announcing her this morning:

While Kagan may be the least objectionable of Obama’s potential appointees, the truth is that she’s a lot like Obama — an academic with no experience for the position she seeks, with a profound lack of intellectual work in her CV. Republicans who oppose Kagan should focus on those shortcomings.

So, we have a nominee with little experience, and one who didn't exactly impress her soon-to-be-colleagues on the high court. Why do I say that? Does anyone really think that something will prevent her elevation to the Supreme Court? She will win confirmation unless some little nugget of dirt is dug up that could ultimately derail this nomination. And if any nugget comes up, it'd better be something akin to Abe Fortas's ongoing problems that led to the first-ever filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, and his eventual resignation in disgrace. (Of course, there is the Goldman Sachs connection, mentioned in the news report at the beginning of this post, that could serve as fodder for the Judiciary Committee, but I sincerely doubt that's going to bounce her from the nomination.)

For more on Ms. Kagan, I suggest the following:

Ann Althouse

C-Span showing her arguments before the Supreme Court

(For the above, a hat-tip to Glenn Reynolds.)

Carol Platt Liebau and a hat-tip to Hugh Hewitt for that, and he has a couple of posts about Ms. Kagan, as well. Make no mistake he'll be talking about her tonight. Tune in 6-9 PM EST, or tune in to KRLA at 3 PM California time.

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos has plenty on her, with lots of links.

Paul Mirengoff and Scott Johnson have some thoughts regarding her. I'm sure John Hinderacker will join his colleagues at PowerLine in weighing in on her nomination.

Michelle Malkin has a round-up of information about Ms. Kagan.

DrewM at Ace of Spades gives some initial thoughts on the Kagan nomination. So does Jack M at Ace of Spades. I'm waiting to see what Gabriel Malor has to offer up when he gets around to it today. I'm sure will have something to add to the discussion later today when he wakes up from his Val-U-Rite vodka weekend of hobo-beating. (Just kidding, Ace.)

Patterico weighs in on her nomination.

Howard Bashman at How Appealing has a round-up of links from across the 'Sphere on her.

Curt Levey at the Committee for Justice blog has thoughts regarding her views on the military.

Hit SCOTUS Blog and keep scrolling down. I count ten posts on this nomination as of 12:29 PM AZ time, and I'm sure they're not done yet.

Jonathan Adler, Ilya Somin, and Jim Lindgren all give their thoughts and reaction on Ms. Kagan's nomination at The Volokh Conspiracy.

And Real Clear Politics has some choice media and blog commentary on her nomination.

Be sure to hit all of the above for your skinny on this woman. Frankly speaking, neither of us are impressed by this nomination. She lacks the legal experience. She's never been a judge (never a prerequisite to be on the high court). She has little experience before the high court. She has ties to Goldman Sachs. She's been a poor solicitor general. She has personal views that will surely guide her decisions as opposed to the letter of the law, and previous jurisprudence. In short, we oppose her nomination to the high court because she's not the sort of justice we need there. We want originalists/textualists on the high court, not activists, and she has all the earmarks of an activist.

Will the GOP oppose her? Not likely. Sure, they'll hit her with a few high, hard fastballs, and she'll stumble on them. But we're seeing between 70 and 80 votes for her in the Senate; likely closer to the mid-seventies. But she will make it, and Barry will have another ally on the high court.

That's the point that the GOP should really focus on. She has a history with Barry. They worked together throughout their lives, and this nomination smacks of cronyism. We oppose her for the same reasons we opposed Harriet Miers: She was a close friend of President Bush, and was unqualified when it came to constitutional law. That's Elena Kagan to a tee (without the ties to President Bush). She's a Barry cheerleader, and will more than likely cast a vote on the court in favor of his policies. We don't need a packed court, and she marks the second nominee that will side with Barry and his agenda.

Publius II

Another chink in the American national security armor

2010-05-05T11:25:00.002-07:00

Michelle Malkin is a superb investigative blogger. She has been on point on a great many issues, and among those issues include illegal immigration, the Democrat's "Culture of Corruption". and most importantly she's been ever-vigilant on issues concerning the war on terror. She has penned an excellent piece today regarding yet another area of weakness regarding how our enemy is able to hurt America:

America’s homeland security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack over the weekend, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad’s U.S. citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg’s response was typical: “I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.” Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception.

Shahzad’s path to American citizenship — he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas — is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham marriage racket with impunity for years. And immigration benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for U.S.-based Islamic plotters, including many other operatives planning attacks on New York City. As I’ve reported previously:

– El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired U.S. citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.

– Ali Mohamed became an American citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. Recently divorced, Linda Lee Sanchez wed Mohamed in Reno, Nev., after a six-week “courtship.” Mohamed became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.

– Embassy bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.

– Embassy bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband’s employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about the nature of her husband’s work. El Hage, she says, was a sweet man, and bin Laden “was a great boss.”

– Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, N.C., married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card to remain in the country.

– Hammoud’s brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving in the United States on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas (already married to someone else, too) to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.

– A total of eight Middle Eastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 — Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh, and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh — all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying American citizens.

I have been saying it for years that our enemy isn't stupid. They're incredibly cagey; shrewd to exploit the legal loopholes that we have in America. Originally, people believed the worst that could happen is these people would over-stay their visas (either authentic or forged), and simple avoid law enforcement while they plotted and planned attacks on the West; America, specifically. And, of course, they have CAIR to fall back on should they get caught, and utilize their team of litigators to avoid deportation or prosecution.

Take note of each person Ms. Malkin lists above. They are only convicted of their crimes AFTER they've evaded law enforcement for a lengthy amount of time. Instead of being thrown out of America for their fraudulent, sham marriages, they're afforded rights that should only be extended to US citizens. "OH, you can't throw Jibril out of America; he's married to a US citizen." Horse hockey, throw them out. Send them home.

Shahzad was moments away from escaping after he planted his Nissan Pathfinder bomb in Times Square. Barry and his team of incompetent "experts" are claiming they had him the whole time. They knew about him, they claim, which is proved by the fact they nabbed him on a plane that was destined for Dubai. BS, folks. The system failed, again, and this guy almost got away. Granted, his bomb wasn't exactly the most sophisticated sort, nor was it constructed competently. But if we're patting ourselves on the back that this bomb didn't do what it was "designed" to do, then we seriously need a reality check. At least the administration does.

Remember that in 1993, al Qaeda tried to bring down the World Trade Center. They failed to do so, but their efforts did kill six people, and wounded hundreds. Just eight short years later they accomplished their task, and killed nearly 3000 people. What's the lesson here?

Our enemy doesn't give up, folks. They never have, and likely they never will until they accomplish their goals. I'm just happy to let al Qaeda know that, despite the general incompetence of this administration, America isn't giving up, either, and we will be there to stop their murderous reign of terror.

Serious reform needs to be made to repair this chink in our national security armor. Ms. Malkin takes note of at least one lawmaker who is trying to enact some level of reform. Senator Joe Lieberman is sponsoring a bill to strip any American citizen of their citizenship should they join, or work to assist, any foreign terrorist group:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is planning to introduce a bill that would allow the government to take away citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations.

The proposal would amend current law that bars American citizens from fighting for foreign armies at the price of losing their citizenship.

“I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act,” Lieberman, who helms the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Fox News.

I know, I know. A lot of people made a hullabaloo about another piece of legislation that Senator Lieberman, with the assistance of Senator John McCain, sponsored recently. (Spare me the comments, folks. The bill doesn't do what most people think it does. The knee-jerk "watchdogs" forget one simple rule about law in America: NO ACT of Congress may trump the US Constitution unless it's an amendment to the Constitution, and you still need three-fourths of the States to approve of that amendment.) But Senator Lieberman is right to bring this sort of reform to the Congress to vote on. It's clear our enemy has adopted a new strategy to exploit the chinks in our national security armor.

This is a lesson we seem to be slow to learn. Our enemy isn't simply going to give up and go away. They're going to keep gunning for us, and they'll exploit any weakness we have. It's high time we fix these weakened areas of our nations armor lest we wish to see another 9-11-esque attack on our soil. As for the administration, their track record on keeping this nation safe isn't exactly stellar. After fifteen months of being in office, Barry and his cronies have dropped the ball four times -- the attack on the Army recruiting office in Little Rock, the attack on Fort Hood, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, and now the Times Square jihadi. Four attempts, two successes, and two dodged bullets. Batting .500 isn't a great stat, especially when we're talking about this war. Lady Luck will only buy you success for so long before she turns on you.

We don't need an administration that's lucky. We need one that's competent, and takes it's primary job -- protecting America -- seriously. And it's clear to me these fools in DC aren't taking anything having to do with this war seriously.

Publius II

Another failure of the system

2010-05-04T12:54:00.000-07:00

I know the media is out there claiming that the averted bombing in Times Square was due to the diligence of the national security experts in the Obama administration. Yeah, that's some nice spin there, but the truth is a little more concerning. Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard gives a quick summary and some pertinent thoughts about this attempted attack. Needless to say, he's right about this administration relying far too much on Lady Luck, and not enough on experience, expertise, and procedures:

Faisal Shahzad, a 30 year-old naturalized American citizen from Pakistan, has been arrested as the chief suspect behind the failed car bomb attack on Times Square this past Saturday. The good news is, of course, that the bomb was fairly unsophisticated (showing a low-level of expertise), it failed to detonate (sparing the lives of New Yorkers and tourists), and the man believed to be responsible for assembling and deploying the car bomb was apprehended in short order. Authorities were able to pinpoint the would-be terrorist in impressively little time.

It is not all good news, however. Law enforcement and intelligence officials failed to stop the perpetrator from placing his bomb in the first place. We were simply lucky that onlookers weren’t killed. If this was truly the work of a rogue individual, a “one-off” event as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano suggested on Sunday, then that failure would be somewhat understandable. As law enforcement and intelligence professionals have repeatedly lamented, it is exceedingly difficult to stop a “lone wolf” terrorist.

Shahzad himself is reportedly telling that story to investigators. In interview sessions with the FBI, Shahzad has said that no one else was involved.

But what if Shahzad is simply lying and he was not a lone wolf? What if, as the press accounts are suggesting, there were more actors involved? What if this was yet another attack by the jihadists’ international terror network?

If that is the case, then this is a replay of the failed Christmas Day 2009 terrorist plot, when a would-be terrorist boarded a plane with a bomb that failed to detonate. Lady Luck and the vigilance of the passengers on board saved the day – not the U.S. government’s multi-billion dollar national security bureaucracy.

He's right. The administration dodged a bullet, not because they actually caught the guy, but because an observant civilian made note of the man. Surveillance cameras in New York caught him as he was changing his shirt after planting the bomb. And then there's the person who sold him the SUV through Craig's List that was able to help federal investigators actually find the guy. Of course, when he was taken into custody he was on a plane, and the plane was heading to Dubai. In other words, he was minutes away from disappearing off of our radar. Mr. Joscelyn continues:

Press accounts say that Shahzad may have ties to foreign terrorists in Pakistan. For example, Fox News is reporting that there are arrests in Pakistan that are tied to the attempted bombing. And the Washington Post reports that investigators are:

…scouring international phone records showing calls "between some of the people who might be associated with this and folks overseas," according to a U.S. official who has discussed the case with intelligence officers. Investigators uncovered evidence -- a piece of paper, fingerprints or possibly both -- that also indicates international ties, according to a federal official briefed on the investigation.

Before Shahzad's arrest, the official said the material points to "an individual who causes concern to [investigators], who has overseas connections, and they are looking for him."

The Post’s source says that we should think “smaller” than al Qaeda in terms of the organization that may be behind this latest attack. An alphabet soup of Islamist terrorist and extremist groups operates in Pakistan, with al Qaeda being the tip of the jihadist spear. So, Shahzad could have made contact with any one of those groups. Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal first reported that the Pakistani Taliban, which works closely with al Qaeda, claimed credit for the Times Square attack in a video that was apparently recorded beforehand. (See here for Bill’s excellent reporting.)

Mr. Roggio was ahead of the curve on this situation. He was ahead of the administration, national security officials, and even the media. He's the one who broke the story about Shahzad attending Taliban training camps while in Pakistan, and based on that information Pakistani officials have arrested eight people in connection to the attempted bombing. Shahzad wasn't the "lone wolf" he's claiming to be to. Jake Tapper reports that he is in the hands of the "High-Value Interrogation Group," or HIG, and that's the story they're getting out of him. But if that were the case, and they believed him, why did Pakistan go after Taliban militants? Simply put, his story doesn't wash, and I'm guessing based on information presented by Bill Roggio, it sounded more plausible that he was executing an attack planned by Taliban commanders in Pakistan.

President Bush, in his address commemorating the fifth anniversary of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, stated the following succinctly: "To attack us, the terrorists only have to be right once; to stop them, we need to be right 100 percent of the time." He was right then, and "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," Thomas Jefferson warned. But it wasn't vigilance that saved lives this time around, just like it wasn't vigilance that saved the people on an airliner on Christmas Day last year. Again, like this potential attack, it was thwarted by observant civilians. Shahzad was on a no-fly list, and still managed to get on a plane to escape. Hell, he bought his ticket on the way to the airport.

Again, the fact this attack was stopped wasn't due to the administration being vigilant. It was due to luck, and unfortunately, luck has a tendency to run out. President Bush left all of the security measures in place when he left office, and Barry has busied himself in dismantling quite a few of those initiatives in an effort to make nice with our enemy. This shows the utter obtuseness of the president. You can't make nice with our enemy. They want to hurt us in ways we can only imagine, and this past weekend they almost succeeded. Granted, bomb disposal people from the FBI and NYPD have stated that the bomb was constructed in an "amateurish" fashion, and likely wouldn't have exploded the way Shahzad had planned it. However, it would have killed or injured a few around the SUV, and had it gone off as planned, the initial casualties would have been the tip of the iceberg. The bomb was designed to create maximum carnage as the first-responders arrived on scene. It could've been really bad, folks. But the administration should be accepting the accolades the media is heaping on them.

They didn't do squat to prevent this. It was an anonymous street vendor that gave the investigators the intelligence they needed to track this guy down. Maybe we ought to make him the Secretary of Homeland Security. After all, he couldn't do any worse than Janet Incompetano has.

Publius II

Calling the "bully" out

2010-04-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

While I disagree with Dennis Kneale's opinion on the new Arizona law, his assessment of the president is spot-on. The president came to national notice from the ranks of community organizers. Like it or not, those people are thugs to the bone. They're the get-in-your-face sort that believe intimidation is the best tactic to get their way. That is hardly presidential, but Barry doesn't care because, well, he won, remember? (HT to Captain Ed)

Will someone please rein in our relentlessly hectoring President? Barrack Hussein Obama has taken his gift for inspirational oratory—one of the traits that got him elected—and turned it into something darker and more insidious.

Bam is a bully. Bad enough that he bashes Wall Street, but this President has gone farther than any in modern history in putting the wrong kind of “bully” back into what Teddy Roosevelt
Obama’s latest broadside came over the weekend, when he vehemently criticized the state of Arizona and its (Republican) governor for passing a tough new law on illegal immigration.

The President called the measure “misguided” and all but labeled it un-American. He even ordered the Department of Justice, before the ink on this bill-signing has even dried, to examine the civil-rights “implications” of the new law. Seems like the courts and rights groups could handle that once any problem actually emerges.

Can you remember any other modern President, wagging a finger from on high, so directly and bitterly criticizing a new law passed by any state?

This is hubris at best and ignorance of the Constitution at worst. The U.S. was founded in part on the precept of states’ rights as an important counterweight to a rapacious federal government. Thus a President must step softly here, questioning gently but avoiding rancor and browbeating.

The new state law itself is disturbing, even detestable, and I don’t like it. It forces immigrants to carry with them proof of their legal status and lets cops demand to see the “papers” of anyone (read: any foreign-looking person) to make sure he didn’t sneak into the country. It smacks of Nazis in the Jewish ghetto in Poland.

But it is the law, and Arizona’s people duly elected the legislators who voted for it. They acted, moreover, on an issue the feds clearly have botched—immigration—and are trying to protect the state’s citizens from an influx of drug-cartel violence from Mexico.

Rather than trash an entire state, Bam could have privately lobbied Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and urged her to veto the bill. Or he could have said, simply, that he hoped to pass better solutions at the federal level.

That would have been statesmanlike, but this President gets pouty whenever anyone dares to disagree with him. He seems to view dissension not as healthy public debate but as a suspicious, pernicious challenge to his omnipotence and popularity.

Obama the Bully, at his State of the Union address, had the temerity to criticize the Supreme Court of the United States for its new ruling that companies have a right to free speech in political campaign advertising (a right that unions already enjoyed, by the way). He did this as the justices themselves sat before him in the audience, paying their respects to a leader who showed them none.

Perhaps President Obama had forgotten an American civics lesson: The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land. It is unseemly and disrespectful for a President to so bluntly and blatantly question the justices’ judgment and intent—especially right in front of their faces.

I can’t remember of any other President in my memory having done this. Nixon maybe? An unfortunate comparison, indeed.

Similarly, President Obama maligns Wall Street for trying to have a say in financial reform and lobbying for its interests, though this input is a vital ingredient in any democratic process. Yet Obama doesn’t criticize giant unions like the AFL-CIO and the SEIU when they similarly lobby on fin-reg.

Why? Because the unions agree with him. Even though Wall Street has a far more legitimate claim to get involved in this debate than do the unions, which represent only 7% of the private work force and essentially should have no dog in this fight at all.

Hmm, now that I think about it, nor can I recall any other modern President who has spent so much effort lambasting his immediate predecessor. Reagan didn’t do it to Carter. Clinton didn’t do it to the first George Bush.

And the worst part is, we’re barely calling out Obama the Bully on this behavior at all. We are becoming entirely too accustomed to it, failing to see it for what it really is: a striking lack of civility, and an overflow of divisiveness, from a President who had promised to give us precisely the opposite.

You may disagree with Mr. Kneale's assessment, but it's true. This president is a bully. Before the election in 2008, I warned people that if they elected Barry, they wouldn't get a president focusing on a new era of uniting this nation, or "repairing" our foreign policy image across the globe. How could we elect such a person when Barry isn't that person at all.

No, in electing Barack Obama president, this nation elected the paranoia and political vindictiveness of Nixon, the incompetence and fecklessness of Carter, and the narcissism and cronyism of Clinton. That's exactly what we have in the White House right now, and it's an embarrassment. The man knows nothing about acting presidential, let alone knowing how the government works.

The federal government isn't supposed to have any stake in any car company, or bank, or mortgage institution, or in the student loan industry. The federal government sure as Hell isn't supposed to be involved in the health care/health insurance industry.

But that hasn't stopped Barry. Yes, he is acting a lot like a bully. But even worse, he's acting like a king, and the last time I checked this nation was founded on the idea that we, as Americans, don't answer to a king. Almost two hundred thirty-three years ago, this nation threw off the yolk of the tyrannical monarchy in Great Britain to be free. Barry must have skipped that lesson in American history class. He also seems to have skipped the lesson in kindergarten about manners and politeness; a lesson that obviously hasn't sunk into that thick skull of his throughout his entire life.

Publius II

Byron York on Arizona's new immigration law

2010-04-27T09:27:00.000-07:00

Unless you've been living in a Taliban cave you know that last week Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed what many consider the strictest immigration law in the United States. Naturally, pro-illegal alien/open borders activists have lost their collective minds. And it's not just here in Arizona where people have lost their common sense. San Francisco is calling for a boycott of Arizona. Mexican officials, including President Calderon, are condemning the law, and warning Mexicans to steer clear of Arizona.

Honestly, these people need to calm down, take a deep breath, and have some dip. Byron York breaks down what this law means and some people in Arizona would be wise to read what he has to say:

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

I have quite a few friends in Arizona that run their own businesses, and they have grown to depend on the Hispanics who have come to Arizona looking for work, a better life, etc. They're afraid this law will drive away those people they have crafted their business to focus on. While that may be true for a minority -- a choice minority who are already evading the law in some way, shape, or form -- for the vast majority it won't be a big deal.

The police aren't going to be able to roust a group of people standing on a street corner looking for work, unless they're breaking the law. (Some cities in Arizona do have statutes forbidding day laborers within a certain area around a business; it is a trespassing offense.) No, this law is specifically crafted to verify a person's status, i.e., if they're here legally, but only when that suspicion is justified.

The police aren't going to be pulling over every Hispanic-looking individual to harass them. But if they do conduct a traffic stop, or they come upon someone they believe has violated the law in one way or another, then they have an opening to check on that person's status. But, as Mr. York points out, there has to be a reasonable belief that someone may not be here legally. In other words, it's up to the officer(s) to determine whether or not they'll check on the person's status. If they have a valid ID, then the officer(s) will likely simply issue a citation/ticket, and move on with no further inquiries.

This law was enacted because the federal government has dropped the ball on this issue. The governor and the state legislature acted where the feds have failed. This is a good law, a sound law, and one which should help us identify and deal with those here illegally. 90% of the people who claimed that they have read this bill haven't. In reality, they're running from talking points from the hyperventilating crowds. We have read the law, and we find nothing wrong with it. The error has come from those who are voicing an opinion in an ignorant fashion. And that goes double for the president sticking his nose in an issue that's none of his business.

I know I'm going to face a wave of criticism from those that I know here in Arizona because I find nothing wrong with this law. I know a lot of those friends are counting on this law to be struck down by the courts, but unless there's an activist judge out there, this will stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Everyone needs to calm down. Hell, the law isn't even in effect yet. It doesn't take effect until August. And when it does take effect, I sincerely doubt we'll see jack-booted police officers rounding up illegal aliens in Arizona. Will the police catch a few? Most definitely. Will they be rounding all of them up? Not hardly. Will this have an economic impact on Arizona? Probably, but it won't be nearly as detrimental as the worker sanctions law, AKA the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) passed in 2007 was. That literally drove Hispanics, regardless of their immigration status, from the state which burdened the state's economy just as the recession across the country was ramping up.

Literally, people do need to calm down. Furthermore, those who are speaking about this bill as if they've read it and understand it need to actually read and understand this bill. Their rhetoric is over-the-top, and most of what they're saying isn't factual. Arizonans, in general, need to relax. If you have a valid ID, then carry it on your person at all time you leave your house/apartment. If you've got that, and you're fairly relaxed when approached by a police officer, you've got nothing to worry about. If you don't have an ID, get one. The bill lists the proper IDs police will accept. Those IDs include a driver's license, a state-issued ID card, a green card, a Consular card, a Mexico electoral card, a passport, a military ID, a tribal ID, or another valid form of ID approved of by the state. If you've got one of those, carry it with you, and you don't have much of a problem.

And Mr. York is correct in his statement that racial profiling is prohibited by this law. It is. Just because you look Hispanic, or may not be able to speak English, those aren't grounds to run an immigration status check. Will there be an occasional case where officers do that? Well, DUH! Police officers are only human, and if they do engage in racial profiling, they'll be reprimanded for that. And yes, we do believe that anyone who is caught, the first thing their activist attorney will do is scream racial profiling. But proving that might be more of a problem for that attorney than most believe.

Publius II

Don't rush the process to ratify the new START treaty

2010-04-21T10:25:00.004-07:00

Barry and ~~Dimitri~~ Dmitry got together earlier this month to hammer out a new nuclear treaty. Former UN Ambassador, John R. Bolton penned a piece for an upcoming issue of National Review on this treaty, and he urges two important things in his piece:

On April 8, in Prague, the United States and Russia signed what they call the “New START” bilateral arms-control agreement, important specifics of which, in hallmark Obama-administration fashion (see health care), were still being negotiated. Nonetheless, the president and his acolytes are calling for the treaty’s swift ratification.

The Senate would better protect our country’s future by actually deliberating before rushing over the precipice. A vital constitutional imperative, the Senate’s role in making binding treaty commitments, is at stake. While some consider it passé to insist that legislators read and understand what they vote upon, senators should insist on their constitutional prerogatives, drawing a line in the sand on this national-security issue.

In fact, there is no compelling reason for the Obama-Medvedev treaty, and there are many reasons to fear its impact. Since the still-incomplete text has just become public, continuing careful analysis will be necessary before we can come to definitive understandings and conclusions. Nonetheless, our very uncertainty lights the road ahead for arduous questioning, ranging from the assumptions of the negotiators to the consequences of implementing the treaty’s provisions.

But before turning to substantive issues, consider two significant process points: Senate timing, and the appropriate level of scrutiny for the Obama-Medvedev text; and the broader potential implications of rejecting it.

There is absolutely no need to rush the Senate-ratification process. Instead, given the strategic issues at stake, precisely the opposite is called for. Obscure phrases in treaty language, even in “technical” annexes, often mask extensive diplomatic bargaining records that must be understood, and the ramifications of seemingly innocuous phrases can be profound. Accordingly, senators must demand adequate time to examine the agreement’s full text, including its protocols and annexes, and hold sufficient hearings and informal briefings, in both open and classified sessions, rather than let themselves be frog-marched to a vote.

If the treaty is as beneficial as Obama claims, if the administration promptly provides the full text that the Senate is being asked to approve, if its language is clear, and if senators’ questions are answered fully and quickly, the question of how much time is required for adequate consideration will resolve itself. Only if it contains dangers and pitfalls that he wants to conceal should President Obama fear a comprehensive review of the agreement and its consequences. If significant questions or ambiguities require more information, then senators are entitled to as much time as necessary to understand the treaty’s implications before voting.

As to the consequences of rejecting the treaty, they are not even vaguely apocalyptic. Senators should understand that saying no to this agreement implies neither opposing all future arms-control agreements nor even opposing a subsequent, modified version of this treaty. Rejecting the text signed in Prague simply requires that negotiators return to the bargaining table, with instructions to Team Obama to do a better job. That is, after all, what the “advice” portion of the Senate’s “advice and consent” power actually means.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Ambassador Bolton is correct: If the president is serious about this treaty then he has to give the Senate the full text of the treaty, and give them plenty of time to read and understand it. The Senate's power to ratify treaties is an important function they retain under the Constitution. We don't ratify treaties for light or transient reasons. Even when President Clinton was confronted with the Kyoto Treaty, he wasted no time in sending it to the Senate (despite the fact that he knew it wouldn't be ratified), and giving the Senate plenty of time to pour over it.

If the agreement that has been publicized is true -- that we will work to scrap our nuclear deterrence and we won't develop any new nuclear weapons -- then this treaty can't be ratified. The Senate should reject it, completely. But Ambassador Bolton is correct: If rejected, it doesn't kill the treaty. The Senate would simply be telling the president and Medvedev that they need to go back to the drawing board.

This is hardly a subject to be rushed. This is also one thing the bloody Senate needs to read. And Barry needs to accommodate their needs. If he doesn't want to, then the Senate should flat-out reject it.

Publius II

ADDENDUM: Thanks to readers pointing out that I mispelled Dmitry Medvedev's first name in the opening of this post. It's fixed now.

AQ in Iraq having a bad week

2010-04-20T12:25:00.000-07:00

I think we can now officially label AQI "on the ropes" on the heels of losing two of their top leaders to an American airstrike:

The two top leaders of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq were slain in a U.S. airstrike over the weekend, a decisive tactical victory for American and Iraqi forces and one that provides Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with additional political leverage at a crucial time.

Acting on a tip they received in recent days, Iraqi and U.S. Special Forces descended on a safe house shared by the leaders of the Sunni Muslim insurgent group in Tikrit, in northern Iraq, officials said Monday.

As the troops approached the house, an explosion occurred inside, likely the result of a suicide bombing, U.S. officials said. American forces then quickly dropped a bomb on the house, U.S. officials said.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian who was the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the shadowy leader of the group's umbrella organization, the Islamic State of Iraq, were among those killed in the operation early Sunday, Maliki and U.S. officials said.

"The deaths of these terrorists is potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency," Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, said in a statement.

One American soldier was killed and three were injured during the operation in a helicopter crash, the U.S. military said. Officials emphasized that Iraqi troops had led the operation.

After being markedly weakened during the U.S. troop surge in 2007, al-Qaeda in Iraq reemerged as a serious threat last year with a series of spectacular attacks that struck at the heart of the Iraqi state, casting a pall over its Shiite-led government and the impending drawdown of American troops.

Today, the group no longer has a steady supply of foreign funding, grass-roots support, or scores of foreign fighters willing to travel to Iraq to carry out suicide bombings. The killing of Masri and Baghdadi will only weaken the group further.

Don't write them off, just yet. AQI is still a threat in Iraq to the stability of the fledgling government. The airstrike, however, does help al-Maliki as he continues to face opposition in the Iraqi parliament, and questions regarding the recent election.. So, he'll take that good news, and the intelligence coup that comes with it. Netted in the aftermath of the airstrike was correspondance these two had with bin Laden:

After Mr. Maliki’s press conference, the American military released a statement verifying that Mr. Baghdadi was killed in a joint raid between Iraqi and United States forces in the dark hours of Sunday morning near Tikrit, near Saddam Hussein’s hometown.

Also killed, according to Mr. Maliki and American officials, was Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, also known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a largely Iraqi group that includes some foreign leadership.

Both men were found in a hole in the ground.

“The security forces surrounded the hole, and when they got them out they were dead,” Mr. Maliki said at the news conference. Mr. Maliki said computers and letters were found that included communication between the men and Osama bin Laden.

I;m not buying the correspondence. I mean, yeah they were likely talking with AQ leaders in Pakistan/Afghanistan, but I still firmly believe that bin Laden is dead. Think about it .... back in July of 2007 bloggers outed a video that was released by al Qaeda that reused old footage of bin Laden. Additionally, they uncovered that the soundtrack to that video was severely edited to the point where what bin Laden was saying didn't match what his mouth was saying. Other videos since then that show him have similar, old footage, and the majority of statements from him have been audio recordings. (No offense, but with the right programs, I could make myself sound like bin Laden.)

The rest of the intelligence on those computers will be put to good use to continue dismantling AQI. The Iraqi forces are performing better than ever, and the American forces are taking more of a support/back-up roll in operations like this. (The Iraqis still need air support, so they turn to us for it.)

It's only a matter of time before either: A) AQI is finished off in Iraq, or B) They retreat from Iraq. I'm hedging bets on the latter, and when they run they'll be heading for one of three places: Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Northern Africa.

Publius II

NSA officer indicted for leaking classified material

2010-04-16T10:26:00.002-07:00

From 2005 to 2007 more than one newspaper printed classified information about the efforts our intelligence agencies were going through to track down and stop terrorists from hitting the US again. Those stories started on 16 December 2005 when the New York Times revealed the NSA's terrorist surveillance program. Then, a few short months later, the Times blew the Swift bank sifting program which was very effective and completely legal. We seethed over the inability to find out who was leaking this information to the Times. Today, the WaPo takes note that at least one former NSA official has been indicted for supposedly passing classified information to media sources:

The indictment of a former U.S. intelligence official accused of leaking secrets to the media marks an attempt by the Obama administration to disrupt a type of transaction that has persisted for decades in Washington, routinely triggering criminal referrals but rarely ending up in court.

The case disclosed Thursday involves a former senior executive at the nation's most secretive spy service. He has been charged with 10 felony counts of mishandling classified information from the National Security Agency and trying to obstruct authorities' investigation of his alleged actions.

Thomas A. Drake, 52, has not been accused of sharing the most sensitive of the NSA's secrets: the means it uses to intercept e-mails and phone calls around the world, or the tools it employs to crack adversaries' codes. Instead, Drake appears to have provided a steady stream of documents and information to a Baltimore Sun reporter whose work exposed NSA system failures and mismanaged programs.

Drake's lawyer said Thursday that his client had cooperated with authorities but would now mount a vigorous defense against the charges.

Prosecutions -- let alone convictions -- of leaks cases have been rare. Many result in efforts to compel journalists to reveal their sources, but in this case the government appears to have identified an alleged leaker directly.

Federal prosecutors dropped charges last year against two former lobbyists for a pro-Israeli advocacy group accused of conspiring to obtain classified information on al-Qaeda and Iraq and provide it to news organizations, including The Washington Post. That effort, launched during the Bush administration, included allegations of espionage, a charge prosecutors have not made against Drake.

Drake isn't telling anyone why he did it, but it has been confirmed that he corresponded with several reporters, and even encouraged them to set up encrypted e-mail accounts to guarantee their security. Additionally, he also served as an editor for a few of the stories to make sure all of the information was correct. He was suspended in 2007 "in lieu of termination" which prompted him to resign. But, according to the WaPo story, after he left the NSA he contracted himself out to them to continue his work.

The indictment states that back in 2007 he began wiping hard drives, and deleting files to cover his tracks because he was concerned he was being watched. His behavior is akin to that of a spy, but instead of passing classified material to a foreign power, he was passing it off to media outlets that revealed the most intricate details of these operations.

The indictment doesn't list the media outlets, but we know that the Times was one of them. They are the ones who broke both the NSA's terrorist surveillance program and the Swift program. What will be interesting to watch is how the Times reacts to having James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, and Bill Keller subpoenaed to testify. Make no mistake, they will likely receive a subpoena, and I'd like to see how cocksure Keller is when he sits on the stand. Remember: It was Bill Keller who basically thumbed his nose at the White House under the misguided idea that the public has a right to know which, when it comes to classified material, is hogwash.

This will be an interesting case to watch, and even though it sticks in my craw, kudos to Barry's Justice department. They are the ones who finally caught this guy. They deserve much of the praise.

Publius II

This is today's Democrat party

2010-04-14T07:50:00.002-07:00

I hate to speak in general terms because not all Democrats that we know are unhinged, moronic lunatics. But a great deal of them are; most notably those under age 40, or so. It's especially true with the much younger, activist-minded Democrats that have been indoctrinated to be foot soldiers in a "cause" that makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It has become known over the last couple of days that several, left-wing activists are planning to infiltrate the Tax Day Tea Parties across the country and smear those protesters. From Jason Levin, one such idiot:

Jason Levin, creator of http://www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15 — tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.

“Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, ‘That’s right, he’s an alien from outer space!’” Levin said…

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group’s least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them.

“Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not,” Levin said. “Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely.”

For the record, Mr. Levin, the vast majority of Tea Party protesters aren't holding up retarded signs about the president's birth certificate. The vast majority aren't shouting racial slurs. The vast majority of Tea Party protesters are out there, utilizing their First Amendment right to gather and protest (right to assemble, petition for a redress of grievances), in opposition to the massive spending and impending higher taxes that will be levied on them.

See, the Left only gathers to let it's nuts run amuck. Remember all of those antiwar/anti-Bush rallies held from 2001 to 2006, or so? They weren't just antiwar/anti-Bush nuts that attended those protests. (Head on over to Zombie's site, and scroll down the left-hand column for photo essays of some of these liberal rallies.) Not only do these people trash the area that they protest (Tea Partiers clean up after themselves), but you get every nut in the liberal closet coming out, including proud, self-proclaimed Communists, Anti-Semites, out-and-0out racists, and the scrotum-enlargement nutbags. (Look folks, I'm not saying conservatives don't have their share of nuts in the tree, but whereas we might knock a couple loose if we shake that tree, you shake theirs and you might get crushed by the amount of nuts that come falling out of it.)

I'll be attending the Tea Party rally on Thursday at the state capital in Phoenix. And I can assure you that these saboteurs are idiots: Do they really think they'll be allowed into these protests if they plan on making @$$es of themselves, and then blaming it on the protesters? Seriously? I attended the Tax Day Tea Party in Phoenix last year, and we had a couple of rabble-rousers that tried to cause trouble. Both of those nuts were "escorted" to the nearest police officer who promptly took them into custody (drunk and disorderly was the charge for one of them; harassment was the charge for the other one).

So if you're planning on joining up with the Tea Partiers with the sole goal of making an @$$ of yourself, save your breath, and don't waste your time. The Tea Party people are aware of this potential to sabotage their protest. You won't be welcome. You'll likely be driven out of the protest. And you just might end up on the receiving end of a severe @$$ beating. That's how fed up we, the people, are right now with this radical, Alinsky-esque machine. While Alinsky might have been a "mentor" to many of those in Barry's administration, while he might have been a favorite author for many of these liberal activists, they're about to get a rude awakening.

The Tea Party people are right in line with the original radicals -- The Founders and Framers. And I'll cast my lot with them before I throw in with a bunch of nutters that haven't accomplished squat.

Publius II

Focusing on a new message

2010-04-13T11:57:00.001-07:00

This past weekend the GOP witnessed this year's Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) with a host of speakers -- all big guns in the GOP -- including Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Haley Barbour, Governor Mitt Romney, Congressman JC Watts, and Senator Rick Santorum. While most of their addresses were short, sweet, and to the point, another speaker brought to the forefront a point the GOP absolutely needs to focus on. Newt Gingrich gave a superb address to the attendees, and he challenged the GOP to change its rhetoric. We shouldn't be the "Party of No." We should become the "Party of Yes:"

The first thing I want to ask you to do will sound a little academic, but it's really important in setting up the arguments for the next three years. I urge you to join me in talking about a secular socialist machine. It's important to be clear who these people are. They don't want to talk about it honestly and openly, but on every front, they're increasing government. On every front, they are trying to micromanage our lives. On every front, they want to raise taxes, spend more, have politicians become more powerful, and citizens become less powerful. And we need to make clear to the American people that this is not a normal series of elections. This is not two groups that share the same ideas and we're struggling over power. This is a fundamental fight over the core definition of America, and it is going to require us to talk, I think, in a very different language than normal politics.

I think it requires us to talk about the American culture, not American politics. Does the work ethic matter, or is redistribution the alternative? It's very central. Are we endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or does government define who we are? Just think about -- but I want you to think about the more we make this a choice about the nature of America, the weaker they are.

So, first, I'd like to ask you to think about this term. I spent several years trying to think through how to explain why is Sacramento such a mess, why is Albany such a mess, why is Washington following Sacramento and Albany, why has Detroit as a city been destroyed, what is it that's happened, and what's happened is that you've had a machine that has a set of values that are antithetical to creativity and productivity and the work ethic, and that machine exists for the purpose of taking away your money, controlling your life, and redistributing your goods to other people based on political whim. It's fundamentally wrong, and it's fundamentally the opposite of the American tradition.

The second thing I want you to think about is, frankly, even more unusual for American politics. I want to give you -- and I say this, having been Speaker of the House, having spent seven years working in the executive branch as a volunteer, having thought a long time about the nature of where we are. I think the most important governing slogan of the next 25 years is very simple and very different. It's "2+2=4."

Now, I got to this because two years ago, Callista and I made a movie called Ronald Reagan Rendezvous with Destiny, and in making the movie, we went to Gdansk, Poland, interviewed Lech Walesa who had been the leader of solidarity and the President of Poland, and then we went to Prague and the Czech Republic and interviewed Vaclav Haval, who had spent three years in a prison and then ended up as President of the new free Czechoslovakia.

Both men said to us the decisive moment in the emergence of freedom in Eastern Europe was a year before Reagan was elected. It was when Pope John Paul II took a nine-day pilgrimage and went to Poland, and in that nine days, over a third of the people of Poland came to see him physically. And so we decided to do a movie about it which is called Nine Days that Changes the World, which we are premiering tomorrow night at Mount Vernon, and it's about freedom through faith and how the two are totally related to each other.

And we have a Polish figure who was there in 1979 who said, "You know, we looked around at 3 million people in Warsaw, and we looked around and suddenly realized there are more of us than there are of the government. So why are we afraid of them?"

Now, solidarity went from 300, from 500 or 600 members to 10 million in a year. There was a constant tension, a constant struggle for 10 years, from June of 1979 when the Pope visited to June of 1989 when Poland had its first reelection, and within the two years, the Soviet Union disappeared. In that struggle, the Polish people came up with a slogan which they printed and they put in their windows. It was "2+2=4." Now, the Communist leadership knew that "2+2=4" was subversive.

But it was very tricky for them to go into a shop and say, "You really have to take that sign down," because it meant they were saying you couldn't say "2+2=4," which made them look just stupid. ...

Number three, this may be the biggest change, and we're going to need your help talking to every Republican candidate and every Republican incumbent and every Republican consultant. What the left wants to do -- I mean, they know they can't win a fight where they're honest about who they are, so they want to be dishonest about who we are. What the left wants to do is say, we're the Party of No, and, frankly, if you go through the legislative process and the setup and the fact that they only bring up their things and so the big votes are always on their things, so Republicans do vote no on their things because their things are really disastrous, you know, and then they say, "See, I told you they were the Party of No because look at all the no votes." ...

So here's what I want to ask you to encourage every candidate you know, every incumbent you know, every staff person you know, every consultant you know. I think we should decide we're going to be the Party of Yes, and we should say Republicans can say yes to a balanced budget through controlled spending. Republicans can say yes to more jobs through tax cuts. Republicans can say yes to balancing the Federal budget without a single penny of tax increase by reforming government. Republicans can say yes to stopping the crooks from taking money from Medicaid and Medicare.

Like or dislike the man, he's right. Instead of allowing the media or Democrats to dictate to us and the nation what conservatives stand for, WE need to be the ones to define ourselves. When "Tingles" Matthews or Keith Olberdouche sounds off on the GOP being against something, such as health care/health insurance reform, we need to fire back.

"No, we're not against it. We're against the ideas that Democrats have in taking over both industries. Here's what our ideas are to reduce the costs that the average American has to pay."

"We're not against taking care of the environment. We're for that, but we don't want the taxpayers getting hosed on a nutty scheme to keep us dependent on other nations, and not producing clean energy such as nuclear power."

"We're not against taxation because it's necessary for the federal government to run. However, the people don't need to deal with the tax burden they have, and government waste can be cut by cutting the size and scope of the federal government."

See, we're no longer the "Party of No. We're the "Party of Yes" and more importantly, we're the "Party of Ideas." During the entire time the health care debate was unfolding, Democrats continuously lied that we didn't have a plan of our own that was better. Yes we did, but thanks to their efforts to concoct a seizure scheme behind closed doors, with no input from Republicans, they controlled the debate. It also didn't help that the media was firmly entrenched on their side of the issue; continually mocking and slandering the GOP.

We do need to be the "Party of Yes," and if we adopt this idea -- confronting the machine in DC run by the Democrats with ideas, facts, and truth, which gives the American public a clear picture of the distinct differences between our parties -- we can finish off the Democrats. We can take the fight to them and defeat them.

This November, the voters are going to bounce the Democrats out of power in at least one House of Congress, and possibly both. But that doesn't end the fight. We need to take the fight to the president next, and make sure he is a one-term president. He appears to be a clone of Jimmy Carter, so it will fall to us to make sure history repeats itself, and we can't do that if we let that moron define us. We need to define him. We need to explain to the public just how dangerously radical his agenda is to this nation, and that we need to put an end to his tenure.

We can't do that by simply being opposed to what Democrats are hatching. We need to fight back against their machinations, present our ideas, and show America we are the party that stands for this nation, and all it entails and guarantees. Do I think the GOP has learned its lesson? I sure hope so because this nation cannot continue to survive with these monkeys at the helm of the ship hitting every iceberg in its path.

Publius II

Still talking nuclear policy

2010-04-07T11:24:00.001-07:00

To be sure the president has taken some lumps over this supposed policy change on our nuclear weapons posture. Yesterday, I took Barry to task over this transparent departure from over sixty years of US national security policy, and while many agreed with me that this was a serious mistake on the president's part some just yawned. Max Boot of Commentary Magazine was one of those that did yawn, but after reading his reasons for doing so, I can understand his position. (HT to Hugh Hewitt) Mr. Boot writes:

I find it hard to get excited about the Nuclear Posture Review released today by the Obama administration, in part because the relationship between “declaratory” nuclear policy and actual nuclear policy has always been tenuous at best. During the Cold War, the U.S. always reserved the right of first use of nuclear weapons, meaning that it if the Red Army rolled into Europe, we would supposedly nuke Moscow. What would have happened in an actual World War III is hard to know, but there is good reason to doubt that any U.S. president would have been the first to order nuclear escalation, whether the Russian hordes were crossing the Fulda Gap or not.

(I agree with Mr. Boot on that latter point. President Truman was the first and only president to ever order the use of nuclear weapons, and he did so to end our hostilities with Japan. That was anything but an easy choice to make. President Truman understood the gravity of using such a weapon, and insisted that we give the Japanese enough notice we were going to use the weapons; giving the Japanese a chance to surrender. But even he wasn't blind to the fact that, more than likely, they wouldn't concede. But as the only president to ever employ such weapons, he had keen insight into the mental throes that go with issuing such an order. No president wants to unleash such a weapon unless it is literally our last resort.)

Likewise, today, for all the speculation going on about whether the U.S. will extend its nuclear umbrella to Iran’s neighbors in case the Islamic Republic acquires nuclear weapons, there is good cause to doubt whether the U.S. (especially under the leadership of Nobel Laureate Barack Obama!) would really be prepared to incinerate Tehran in the event of Iranian aggression against Saudi Arabia or even Israel.

(Another true statement from Mr. Boot. Given the rhetoric from this White House with regard to Iran, it's no secret that Barry wouldn't lift a finger even if Iran not only revealed they had nuclear weapons, but also used one on one of its neighbors. As I have repeatedly stated there is doubt that Iran would play a game of chicken with a handful of nukes. They'd likely use them to blackmail their neighbors, and areas of Europe within the reach of their missiles. It's not a nuclear strike we should be worried about, but rather how blackmailed nations would act with regard to America. Of course with the way Barry is acting towards our allies, Iran won't need to use nukes to blackmail them into leaving us in the cold. Barry's doing a "fine" job of that on his own.)

Thus, I don’t attach much significance to the Obama administration’s narrowing the categories under which the U.S. would supposedly use nuclear weapons. As the Washington Post account notes:

Under the new policy, the administration will foreswear the use of the deadly weapons against nonnuclear countries, officials said, in contrast to previous administrations, which indicated they might use nuclear arms against nonnuclear states in retaliation for a biological or chemical attack.

But Obama included a major caveat: The countries must be in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations under international treaties. That loophole would mean Iran would remain on the potential target list.

I suppose the administration gets credit for resisting liberal pressure to foreswear any first use of nukes, but, to my mind, any such policy, whether it remains on the books or not, is not terribly credible. It’s fine to keep a small nugget of deterrence alive by not formally burying it, but it’s hard to imagine the U.S. ever using nukes unless it had first been attacked with WMD – meaning nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The Obama review says that countries that employ only biological or chemical weapons won’t be nuked unless they’re out of compliance with nuclear nonproliferation treaties. Actually, the administration is leaving even more wiggle room than that. According to the New York Times:

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

In short, the Obama policy isn’t that big of a change from the policy it inherited. It is, as the Washington Post has it, a “middle course.”

To my mind, the real test of our nonproliferation policy isn’t how we claim we will respond to hypothetical scenarios but rather what we do about actual current dangers. In regard to Iran – the world’s No. 1 proliferation threat – the auguries aren’t propitious, with the Financial Times reporting that a new round of sanctions won’t be on the UN Security Council agenda in April. Thus, Obama’s threats to hit Iran with tough sanctions if his entreaties to talk were rejected are increasingly being exposed as hollow. That kind of wishy-washiness is something that Iran and other rogue regimes understand. By comparison, the theoretical language contained in the Nuclear Posture Review seems more like, well, academic posturing.

It is, literally, posturing. Barry went out of his way to assuage fears the US might use its nuclear arsenal against any nation that might hit us with a WMD. But it doesn't help this nation to know that the nuclear option is now openly off the table. Before now nations would have to weigh a decision to attack us with a WMD out of fear of what our retaliation might be. (As we don't use chemical or biological weapons, we have only one, serious response at our disposal, and it's now officially off the table.)

Mr. Boot is correct: 99% of the time the president would opt out of using nuclear weapons. Recall 11 September 2001 when nineteen foreign-born jihadists hijacked four jetliners, and turned them into a WMD. Nearly 3000 Americans died that die in the worst attack in US history. Did President Bush order a nuclear strike on Afghanistan once the perpetrators were discovered and researched?

No, he didn't.

I'm sure there is a whole host of reasons why that option either wasn't entertained, or was taken off the table eventually. Among them, most likely, would have been the civilian casualties that would've been guaranteed had such a strike been ordered. And that is one reason why no president wants to make that call. But the point of the change is that the decision has always been in the hands of the president. Barry's decision is to remove that aspect of our arsenal off the table in 99% of the cases.

Like anything else that comes out of this administration, there are mealy-mouth caveats in this decision. The fact that whether or not a nation is in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty should be irrelevant. It really doesn't matter if they are or not if they've decided to strike the US. For over sixty years this nation sat upon a threat that if we were ever struck by a WMD, or our allies were, that we would respond with a nuclear strike. And that was regardless of their treaty compliance. We never left ourselves as naked and open as we are today.

I understand Max Boot's overall point which is this isn't necessarily a change in policy as much as it is posturing and preening on the world stage. Where I disagree with Mr. Boot is on this simple fact: Since the development of nuclear weapons, the Left has busied themselves with attempting to disarm us. The fight has been long, and up until this declaration they had failed. But Barry's in charge now, and his infamous boast back in July of 2008 that he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons has emboldened his supporters to push us in this direction, deterrence be damned.

We live in a very dangerous world, and the only thing that kept the majority of our enemies at bay was the fact that we had a weapon they didn't have, and that weapon could literally annihilate them. Now that threat is off the table; empty and as dangerous as a toothless guard dog. While Barry pats himself on the back for this decision, our enemies are licking their lips, sharpening their knives, and preparing to hit us in more bold actions than what we've experienced since 11 September. Recall, if you will, the intelligence assessment handed to Congress back in February that stated al Qaeda was planning more stealthy and devastating attacks on the US, primarily focusing on our computer networks.

While some may think that such an attack couldn't ravage or wreak havoc across the nation, they're dead wrong on so many levels. The world runs on computers. Imagine a cyber-attack on a level that shuts down just one-quarter of the nation's power grid. Imagine the havoc created on our streets;
envision the chaos in hospitals;visualize the Hell that would be wreaked on businesses.

Traffic lights stop working. In the ensuing bedlam, On-Star units don't work. No way to get help after accidents. (Not all cars have On-Star, I know, but most new cars do have it. And if you think the cellphone is going to work, think again.) We have evidence that elements of al Qaeda have been researching and utilizing cyber-terrorism. (HT to Dr. Rusty Shackleford) And remember that Barry specifically included cyber-attacks in his declaration that we wouldn't use nukes no matter the overall it might do to the nation.

Regardless of how you might feel about the declaration from Barry -- for or against nuclear weapons -- you can't tell me that our posture for sixty-plus years hasn't served America well. That defense posture kept China, Russia, and even Cuba at bay. Even after the break-up of the Soviet Union, when fears ran high about rogue Russian warheads leading to an "outbreak" of nuclear proliferation, the US was safe because of this doctrine. And even if Mr. Boot is correct, and no president would actually follow through on a nuclear strike, the threat always remained, and caused our enemies to take a moment of pause before deciding whether or not it was worth it to provoke that level of reciprocity.

Publius II

New American nuclear posture: Slumped over in appeasement and surrender

2010-04-06T10:54:00.000-07:00

This seems to be the story of the day as Barry announces what the new nuclear posture of America is. From New York Times:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

Time out. "Carving out an exception for outliers like Iran and North Korea"? He hasn't done a bloody thing about either regime except send strongly worded, pen-pal letters asking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il to stop their nuclear programs. He seems ready to accept Ahmadinejad's statement that their program is "peaceful" despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, and an IAEA report from February stating that Iran was working on nuclear warheads. (A quick look through McKittrick's archives on North Korea at Closing Velocity shows that not only is North Korea still conducting missile and nuclear tests, but they're fully engaged in nuclear proliferation. And no, we don't buy their "promise" that they'll end the practice.) Back to the Times:

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

Uh-huh. Right. The reason there was ambiguity in our nuclear posture was exactly WHY we never truly faced the threat of a nuclear war. NO NATION knew exactly what our posture was, and they didn't know ho we'd react. Russia tries to invade Western Europe? Not bloody likely so long as the Russians believed it could spark such a scenario. MAD, or Mutual Assured Destruction was a far better strategy than detente was due to the fact that every nuclear nation out there knew that if they attacked us, or our allies, with a weapon of mass destruction, they faced the serious possibility of being nuked off the face of the planet by America. (Pardon me, but this is another stellar example of Barry simply being in over his head. He doesn't have a clue as to why we had a certain position on national security. We control issues and situations better when we control information; information that shouldn't be privy to our known or potential enemies around the world. National security is designed, specifically, to be ambiguous so our enemies are constantly on guard as to how we might react to any given national security situation.)

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike. ...

So, let me get this straight. If, say, a nation like Venezuela develops a bio-weapon, and launches a bio attack on the US (not likely, but hear me out), if they don't have sufficient stockpiles or development of said weapon, we won't hit back with a nuke, possibly? You're kidding me ...

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.” ...

Can someone please inform the Rookie-In-Chief that the fact we had a nuclear stockpile was deterrent enough for nations NOT to strike us with a WMD? Hello? Russia never tried to strike us because they knew we'd respond in like kind. We could wipe them out with our arsenal, and the Russians weren't the only ones worried about that fact. Some people don't figure in the fact that the fallout from such an exchange would be disastrous to the human race. There was plenty of speculation that abounded from the MAD doctrine, including the amount of people who would die from the fallout in a subsequent time frame, the amounts of new cancer cases that would erupt from the fallout, the destruction of the food supply (irradiated and unusable) and the water tables across the globe. When you drop a nuke, folks, the spot in the nation that's hit isn't the only area that suffers the damage, and that damage is long term. THIS is what was so integral to the MAD doctrine.

John Hinderacker at PowerLine sums this up in a nice, tidy package:

Does anyone doubt that the administration would use nukes in a heartbeat if it considered such measures necessary? I don't. The problem is that when the time comes to actually use nuclear weapons, it is too late. The danger here is not that the Obama administration has really gone pacifist. On the contrary, the significance of today's announcement appears to be entirely symbolic--just one more chance to preen. The problem is that our enemies understand symbolism and maybe take it too seriously. To them, today's announcement is another sign that our government has gone soft, and one more inducement to undertake aggressive action against the United States.

I do disagree with John on his initial point. If this nation were hit by a WMD attack by a nation, or a "crippling cyberattack" was launched, I doubt the administration would even consider the possibility of launching a nuclear strike. Why? For exactly the reason he alludes to in the latter; this is a chance for Barry to preen like a peacock, and show the world that, indeed, change has come to America, and it's not change for the good. When it comes to national security and foreign policy, it's the change to appeasement and surrender.

Publius II