Category Archives: News

“We had to put the Second Amendment over the First Amendment.” (7:21)

Yes, it’s common sense to credit the NRA for its involvement with the McDonald vs Chicago case and its fight for the Second Amendment, which, I think, would have been infringed upon even greater longer ago without the NRA.

However.

I don’t like what I’m seeing with the NRA on this – and their wish to protect the Second Amendment by way of seeking exemption under DISCLOSE is nullified if they traded exemption for silence on the hearing of an anti-gun Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as part of of the deal.

You can’t be non-partisan because the Second Amendment, in current society, is not a bipartisan issue.

By silencing yourself, ironically, on an issue for exemption so that you don’t have to be silenced later on is playing with the First Amendment whether you realize it or not.

I laid out the rest of my and your concerns in the interview. Whole show podcast available here, 6/28 first hour.

From today’s Politico:

The Democratic National Committee is seeking “Macaca” moments. The party today is opening a website, www.accountabilityproject.com, designed to recruit and display embarrassing audio and video of Republican candidates, as well as information about their schedules and copies of their mailers.

Campaigns have long made videotapes of each other, using “trackers” who follow the opposition from event to event. It was a young tracker who shot the video footage of then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) that wound up sinking his campaign.

The DNC hopes campaigns and journalists will use the footage in ads and news coverage. The site targets both 2010 candidates and 2012 hopefuls.

“[R]egular citizens can upload video or audio they’ve captured at pubic campaign events, and they can upload event information for upcoming campaign appearances by Republican candidates so others can attend and hold Republicans accountable of they don’t tell the truth.,” a DNC official said. “Unlike YouTube where you can only upload video, … users can download high quality videos from the site for clipping and using for their own projects (web videos, ads, etc).”

A DNC official said the party will screen the video “for inappropriate content, authenticity, etc. We don’t want people trying to make something out of something that didn’t happen by splicing the video — we want good raw footage of authentic moments on the trail.”

The site will be launched Tuesday with a mass e-mail from DNC Research Director Shauna Daly, with the subject line, “The Accountability Project: Hold Republicans accountable.”

Continue reading here. A couple of weeks ago, when we broke the story about Rep. Etheridge roughing up some student videographers, Democrats and the media were obsessed with finding the students in the video and determining whether they were employed by the GOP. The DNC even issued talking points, arguing that Etheridge’s behavior would be excused if the students were campaign operatives. We await such hand-wringing if a GOP member is embarrassed on video this summer.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg might want to retool some of his immigration reform initiatives within his new national coalition, the Partnership for a New American Economy, and team up with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to tell the Federal Government to “do their job.”

Why?

Because the Mayor’s idea to give immigrant investors green cards to create jobs for Americans already exists. It’s called the EB-5 category for Immigrant Investors. In fact, the EB-5 has been on the books since 1990—that’s twenty years. The problem is the federal government-run United States Citizenship & Immigration Services’ (USCIS) inability to competently process applications.

It was last week when Mayor Bloomberg said on Fox News that he had suggested to the Obama Administration, “You say to immigrants who have money, and are entrepreneurs from around the world, ‘Come to America. We will give you a Green Card. If you start a business here and employ ten or more Americans, and as long as they are still working– you keep your Green Card.’ It matches our needs with their needs and everyone benefits.”

According to the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services:

The fifth employment based visa preference [EB-5 Immigrant Investor

Category], created by Congress in 1990, is available to immigrants seeking to enter the United States in order to invest in a new commercial enterprise that will benefit the US economy and create at least 10 full-time jobs…

Acquiring lawful permanent residence (“Green Card”) through the EB-5 category is a three step self-petitioning process…

To read more about EB-5 click here.

It’s unfortunate the Obama Administration didn’t have the courtesy to inform Mayor Bloomberg that his great idea was already on the books before he spoke publically about it.

So what’s the problem for immigrant investors trying to create American jobs? Borrowing from James Carville, it’s the government-run immigration agency, the USCIS, stupid.

According to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS) 2009 Annual Report to Congress:

… Congress allocated approximately 10,000 immigrant visas per year to this category to make the program an important job creating engine for the United States. However, EB-5 usage rarely has exceeded 1,000 per year. EB-5 underutilization is caused by a confluence of factors, including program instability…

This is extraordinary considering as Senator John McCain noted during his failed 2008 Presidential bid that legal immigrants can be stuck in grueling backlogs for “20 years,” waiting to find out whether or not they have been approved to live in America. It takes a mindboggling level of ineptness for this $2.6 billion agency, the USCIS, to repeatedly fail to fill this precious job creating quota because they cannot process applications competently.

But there is more Mayor Bloomberg and his highly respected coalition members comprised of top CEOs should know. From p. 55 of the 119-page 2009 CIS report:

Recommendation (to improve EB-5)

1: Finalize regulations to implement the special 2002 EB-5 legislation offering certain EB-5 investors a pathway to cure deficiencies in their previously submitted petitions. The Ombudsman understands that proposed regulations have been drafted, but have been stalled in USCIS’ internal rulemaking review process. As these regulations have been in the drafting and review process for over six years, they are long overdue…

And then there is this from p. 12:

USCIS document production and mailing processes have raised concerns, as there is no mechanism by which to track delivery of USCIS documents to ensure receipt by the proper recipient. Last year, the Ombudsman highlighted some of the issues that may arise from delivery problems, including lost or stolen documents and unnecessary delays…

Welcome to legal immigration in America. It’s a nifty sound bite but for countless lawful immigrants who sought America’s dream–legally, it has been a cruel nightmare or an exercise in futility.

But the system becomes more and more anti-legal immigration by the day. For those who were able to obtain status, for example, now the agency is kicking out lawful business owner immigrants, like this British couple who ran a restaurant since 2000.

Clearly Mayor Bloomberg, a wildly successful billionaire businessman, would have to agree that a private company with those problems would have been out of business years ago. Meanwhile, should it become law, the USCIS is the agency tasked to process a path to legal status for 12-20 million illegal aliens. That’s another one of Mayor Bloomberg’s immigration reform initiatives.

The dirty secret Washington politicians don’t want people to know is how the immigration crisis, a federal-government made disaster, occurred under both Republican and Democrat leadership when they abdicated their obligation to secure the borders and run a competent immigration agency. Mayor Bloomberg’s idea for investor immigrants was a good idea. It’s too bad the USCIS failed to implement it competently.

Cross-posted at marinkapeschmann.com

It’s hard to respect a “journalist” who repeatedly insulted and mocked leading conservatives he was assigned cover, and even wished death on some of them, to a secretive email list compromised of liberal media figures around the country.  Whatever this says about Weigel’s political orientation, it speaks loudly and clearly to the fact that he was an unprofessional jerk, and that’s putting it kindly.

Weigel has mostly owned up to this fact, which I think says something positive about his character.

But as long as Weigel is airing more of his Journolist laundry, perhaps it should be pointed out that at one point in time Weigel aired this same kind of vitriol against leading liberal figures.

For example, do you think Dave still thinks Paul Krugman is “obviously insane”, “simple-minded” and a “cancer on the Times”? Does he still think that Krugman’s column is a “litany of propaganda, lies, and insults”?

Does he still think that Maureen Dowd “sucks” and that her work is “absolute tripe”? Does he still wonder: “why is this woman employed”?

Because I sure do (all of the above), but then I do not have a professional need to ingratiate myself with the liberal media establishment.

Weigel claims that at one point he was conservative, and the record suggests that at one point he actually was. In fact, he even went so far at one point as to claim he was a “rabid conservative” who gets “a contact high from attacking silly liberals”. (Rabid, you know, like Sarah Palin.)

But one thing seems to be missing throughout what is a pretty voluminous catalog of blog posts and articles written by Weigel during his “conservative” phase, and that is any significant elaboration on or promotion of conservative policy or principle.

Given that Weigel voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 before voting for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008, might Weigel’s stint as a “rabid conservative” best be explained as a college-era whim, a way to fit-in with the peers he wished to associate with?

Weigel’s bio on his college-era blog may provide the answer (emphasis added):

Are you a conservative? I thought you voted for Nader.

When I came to NU, I was several shades more liberal than I am today. As I learned more about economics and political science and spent more time working with the Chron staff, my opinions shifted right. For the moment I’m still a Democrat, because it’s as much a part of my family as bad skin and compulsive weight gain, but I’m more Joe Lieberman than Paul Wellstone. I did vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, which I regret. If the election were held today I’d vote for George Bush.

Why do you work for the Chron?

Originally it was because I was friends with the editors, Josh and Michael. Now it’s because I really am a rabid conservative and get a contact high from attacking silly liberals.

You be the judge. But whatever the case, there is a place for talented reporters who make a career out of mocking conservatives to ingratiate themselves with the liberal establishment. It’s called the mainstream media and I expect Weigel to have a long and prosperous career there.

Just don’t expect to see him working with Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd at the Times.

With the passing of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, the defining narrative among politicos will — after a few hours’ decorum — emerge as does Byrd = Kennedy? That is to say that, while so many West Virginians would never vote against Byrd, now that he’s gone there are plenty of the same Blue State voters who would vote against a non-Byrd Democrat in this Age of Obama.

I don’t follow West Virginia politics closely but assume their version of Scott Brown would be Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. His or her identity, as well as whether the same phenomenon would play out, likely depend on if the election is held this fall, vs. 2012: there are some murky legal issues to sort through involving how long a placeholder would hold the seat. Still I’m pretty sure it will be someone staunchly anti-cap-and-trade (in both parties, in fact; the last West Virginia politician to show insufficient zeal against the scheme, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D), recently lost in a primary).

Cap-and-trade of course is the vehicle by which the president vowed to cause your electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket” as part of his effort to “bankrupt” the coal industry and anyone who sought to continue burning coal for that one-half of our electricity that it provides. Incidentally, today’s Wall Street Journal also notes how Obama’s anti-coal jihad just cost about 1,000 jobs in Wisconsin; West Virginia needs no such reminders yet as they pile up they also cannot help but be relevant.

How strongly West Virginia can inveigh, through its congressional representation, against this cruel ideological push is of increasing importance right now. Democrat staff are increasingly bold in their discussion of suckering Republicans into helping them pass it in a lame duck session, without having to vote on it in the Senate until after the elections.

The vehicle for said suckering is a “must-pass” Gulf spill bill — not that what is being proposed would have done anything to prevent the latest disaster of a company, BP, that like Enron lost the plot and fell apart as a result, any more than the financial services “reform” would have prevented the Fannie- and Freddie-precipitated meltdown.

From today’s E&E Daily story (subscription required):

What Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) puts in the Senate climate and energy bill, and what gets added on the floor, may not matter as much as simply whether some bill passes.

In the end, a joint House-Senate conference committee will likely hammer out the final version of the bill. That might not take place until a “lame duck” session after the November election, when much of the political pressure on lawmakers has dissipated.

Which means that despite the oft-repeated assertion by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) that “cap and trade is dead,” the House’s bill based on cap and trade could be back in play — someday, given the right conditions. Even if they do not enact cap and trade, Democratic leaders could use a conference to ratchet up the climate regultions [sic] past what the Senate agreed to and beyond what Democratic House centrists want.

“We have a lot of wiggle room in conference,” said a House Democratic aide.

And it could be hard for centrists in either party or either chamber to walk away from the bill if they have taken the risk of voting for it on initial passage.

“Once you get to conference, it’s an up-or-down vote,” said Norm Ornstein, a veteran congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “People who vote against it have to explain why they voted for it before they voted against it.”

That lame duck strategy is little more brazen than the Democrats’ efforts to cram-down the health care takeover. Indeed, not only will embittered losers have nothing else left to lose given the elections will be behind them. Worse, given that many Dems will be out of jobs by that point, they actually will be in a bidding war for ambassadorships or other sinecures by doing Obama a solid and seizing the ever-closing Obama Window to “fundamentally transform America”.

So the Dems think the Senate will pass a “Gulf spill” bill, the prospect of any vote against which they Dems are already styling as a vote for BP and Big Oil (they don’t say how). Then this will be merged with the House “energy” bill which was the 1,400 page monstrosity bearing cap-and-trade, among other odious delights of the Left.

It seems unlikely that Sen. Byrd would smile on this abuse of the rules of our representative democracy, but there you have it. His party will be against BP before they are for it…BP having invented carbon cap-and-trade with Enron, aggressively lobbying until this very day for the payoff it is designed to provide them.

The only issue is whether the Republicans are absorbing the message: the Dems are digging a political pit and layering its top with rhetorical palm fronds, certain that the Republicans will stumble into the “must do ’something’!” trap and pass a “Gulf spill bill”, with every sentient being knowing full well this is the Senate Dems’ ticket to a cap-and-trade, lame duck conference. And enactment of their last remaining high profile Power Grab.

Sadly, neither history nor the utterances of one Senate Republican to date provide any succor that they are on to the game.

The debate agitating many in New Jersey right  is whether or not the state’s Governor, Chris Christie, is actually doing much to reform the state as it needs to be. I have to say that I wasn’t impressed with him during his campaign for the Republican nomination against Steve Lonagan. Having no interest in the politics of politic, he sounded like a big government Republican to me.

With that in mind, I was nicely surprised by the turn that Christie’s campaign against Corzine took and by some of his policies. He talked about small government, the need for reforming New Jersey, rejected the millionaire tax, capped property taxes and proposed budget cuts. But now that I am catching up on New Jersey reforms, I am skeptical again.

Let’s start with by comparing Christie’s FY 2011 $29.3 billion budget to Corzine’s FY 2010 budget of 29.8 billion. Given today’s economic climate, a 1.5% cut is not one that deserves immense praise. However, for a second I thought, “spending cuts are spending cuts and better that than nothing.”

That’s until I came across the alternative budget prepared by Americans for Prosperity called New Jersey Taxpayers’ Budget FY 2011. The AFP budget adds up to $25.9 billion. That’s $2.4 billion less than what is proposed by Governor Christie. Plus, they did this, without raising taxes. Unlike Christie’s budget.

That’s right, as part of a compromise on the budget, Christie made a deal with Democrats: he will put back millions into his budget (to buy things such as keeping open Hagedorn Psychiatric Hospital in Hunterdon County, funding for cultural sites including the Battleship New Jersey and the Newark Museum, more funding for projects in Urban Enterprise Zones) in exchange for  a series of new tax and fee hikes are being put forward as supplemental bills.

Here are the new tax: a tax on insurance premiums, a tax on health care, a tax on new businesses.

But the best tax us is a tax on consumers that will confiscate more than 28 million dollars of gift cards purchased in New Jersey.  The AFP New Jersey Blog explains:

That’s right. If you do not use a gift card to your favorite restaurant after one year, the State will confiscate the money!

Okay so now I am totally confused by the governor’s plan. His plan barely cuts spending, his cuts mainly target suburban aids (which, if done right would be a good thing), yet he keeps the taxes that funds this programs and uses the money to fund programs in the cities. Let me recap this: So Christie is cutting aids to places where the people who got him elected live, keeping the taxes that funded these programs, and funds more programs for the people who voted against him. Politicians in New Jersey are strange.

A friend, very active in New Jersey’s politics, explained to me the consequences of Christie’s budget.

His “cuts” were in suburban aid.  While I don’t agree with the suburban aid scheme — cutting that alone means almost all of us will have to bear increased property taxes. [Of course,] Christie’s proposed tax cap are encouraging.  However, given Christie has done almost nothing relieve the cost pressure on cities, I don’t see how this can positively play out.  In fact, Christie has let stand prevailing wage mandates passed in December 09 that truly limit cost savings.

I don’t think that now is the time to find excuses for the policies that come out of political compromises that are bad for taxpayers. It is no secret that I am not over President Bush’s many betrayals of free-market ideas throughout his eight years in office–no matter how terrible the current president is–and I would hate for the same thing to happen all over again. I understand that many people are excited to have a Republican governor in New Jersey. But, that’s no reason to cut him any slack especially if he behaves like a democrat.

Plus, the state doesn’t have the luxury to wait for true reforms.

From the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms,” advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Continue reading here.

Dear Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan,

The remains of another seventy-two people were discovered on Friday not far from where you plan to build a thirteen-story Islamic center and mosque. Here we are, close to ten years after the largest jihadist attack ever to take place on American soil, and bodies, corpses, are still being recovered. Who knows how many body parts were found in the Burlington Coat Factory building when the landing gear crashed through all five floors? Thousands were never recovered. Their cemetery, their burial ground, is the area in and around Ground Zero. not far from where you plan to build a thirteen-story Islamic center and mosque. Here we are, close to ten years after the largest jihadist attack ever to take place on American soil, and bodies, corpses, are still being recovered. Who knows how many body parts were found in the Burlington Coat Factory building when the landing gear crashed through all five floors? Thousands were never recovered. Their cemetery, their burial ground, is the area in and around Ground Zero.

Of course, as one of the leaders of the opposition to the painful and strangely thoughtless “Cordoba Initiative,” my group SIOA will be pursuing legal avenues to stop or at least dramatically slow down the building of this mosque on the site that many consider to be a war memorial, while also staging mega-protests and sit-ins if and when construction begins, etc. But must it come to that?

You and I are New Yorkers. We  are Americans, first. You, too, felt the devastating pain and anguish when the military arm of Islam (al qaeda) unleashed its attack on America on September 11th. The gaping hole at Ground Zero is a constant reminder of that terrible war.

Must we go legal? Must we stage more rallies with tens of thousands of Americans opposing the mosque? Can we not, as human beings, and in the interest of building bridges, mutual understanding and respect, implore you to reconsider your plans? I am sure your motivation to build bridges was a good one. But as you can see, it has had the opposite effect. The public outcry of millions of Americans make plain the wound that has been reopened and the terrible pain this is causing for families, for patriots, for Muslims of conscience. It is unbearable. This surely was not your intent.

Interfaith dialogue is a two-way street. I believe we should all be sensitive to each other. I don’t see Muslims separately or apart, I see Americans. Period. Americans who love this country, and don’t share the idea of “pure Islam” or “original” Islam that is found in Islamic countries. In many of the emails I receive, many Muslims understand the pain “Cordoba” inflicts — not just the idea but the name itself (evoking Islamic conquest over the West).

I call upon your conscience, your goodness, your love of America, to move you to reconsider. More rallies will be staged — tens of thousands will show. People might get hurt in a sit-in trying to stop the ground breaking of a mosque looking down on Ground Zero. Why? In the interest of building bridges?

Can we talk about this? Can we discuss this? Can the building have a church and a synagogue as well as a  mosque? Or perhaps no mosque at all — much the way community centers like the 92nd Street Y or the YWCA, to which you have compared your plan, don’t have churches or synagogues.

As a man of the clergy, you must understand the pain this is causing for the victims who mourn their dead, for Americans who mourn their country’s losses ……..  You can not have wanted to create such sorrow.

What can we do to get you to withdraw this plan? Should we try to raise the money to release you from this tragic mistake? How can we help you? We want to work with you and do the right thing, build bridges and show each other mutual  understanding and mutual respect. As a religious man, you would never mean to cause such overwhelming sadness and grief.

Imam Rauf, please withdraw this plan and show the world real understanding and kindness and empathy.

Sincerely yours,

Pamela Geller

Please sign this appeal to the Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan.  Let them hear us.

From Reuters:

Republicans have questioned whether Kagan, a former Harvard law school dean who has served in the past two Democratic administrations, is driven more by politics than law.

Democratic backers call the 50-year-old nominee, who last week received the American Bar Association’s top rating, a perfect fit for the highest U.S. court.

Obama has faced a Republican wall of opposition this election year on issues like healthcare, climate change and immigration.

But barring unforeseen bombshells at the hearing, at least a few members of the opposition party are expected to join Democrats and confirm Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s leading liberal.

“She will be confirmed,” Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who will preside over the hearing, told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday.

“How many votes I don’t know (but) she will get a whole lot of votes,” Leahy added.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the committee’s top Republican, offered no such predictions. “A lot of that depends on how this hearing goes,” said Sessions, who appeared with Leahy.

On Sunday, Sessions said, “This is a confirmation, not a coronation … She has the least experience of any nominee at least in the last 50 years.”

Continue reading here. The National Rifle Association is apparently sitting this one out. The organization recently sent a letter to its board, prohibiting any of them from testifying on Kagan’s Second Amendment views. This comes suspiciously soon after it cut a deal with Democrats to exempt itself from the DISCLOSE Act.

While Free Press pitches a (staged?) hissy fit about one with AT&T, Verizon – and Google and Skype

Chairman Julius Genachowski and his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have been for quite some time seeking to drastically increase their regulatory control over the internet.

The Chairman and the Commission lack the legal authority to do this.  They have been told this by (at least) a Clinton-appointee led federal appeals court – in the Comcast-BitTorrent case – and a bipartisan Congressional contingent, who wrote Chairman Genachowski letters telling him to cut it out.

Undaunted, Chairman Genachowski headed once more into the breach.  On June 17^th, he convened the five FCC Commissioners to vote on a proposed reclassification of broadband – from the lightly regulated Title I to the much more burdensome Title II.  And the Commission voted to begin the investigative process, on a Democrat Party-line 3-2 vote.

All of this was done to the delight – and the crack of the whip – of the Media Marxists.  Led by the egregiously mis-named organization Free Press, the Media Marxists make up the “media reform” wing of the “social justice” movement.  Members of this movement are currently in power in Washington, and they are seeking to fundamentally transform our nation.

For the Media Marxists, fundamental transformation means eradicating all private ownership of all avenues of media and communication – radio, television and the internet – so as to have the government be the sole provider of all information.  The damage this would do to free speech – not to mention the free market system – is of course all-encompassing.  And decidedly frightening.

But I took some minor comfort when I heard that Edward Lazarus – Chairman Genachowski’s Chief of Staff – had a June 21^st meeting with senior officials from Verizon, AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  After all, since they are large players in making the internet work, it makes sense to get their input on whatever it is the FCC is trying to do.

As irresponsible as the FCC has been, it was good to see this bit of rationality.

And these three telecom representatives were not alone in the room with Lazarus and other FCC staffers.  Google and Skype – two huge players standing opposed to the telecoms on the FCC’s broadband power play – were also in attendance – so much for the ex parte (one party) charge being leveled against the FCC.

So clearly this was not some inside job on the part of the Commission to “sellout” the Media Marxist push for dramatically more government regulation. (If only.)

Besides, Chairman Genachowski has already ignored a federal court and more than 240 members of Congress in choosing to press on.  Certainly one meeting with members of the industry he seeks to increasingly regulate doesn’t represent his waving the white flag.

Well, not according to Free Press.  The next day, they issued a press release “warn(ing) against the industry takeover of open internet.”  And placed a full page advertisement in Big Media member the Washington Post – calling the meeting a “Big $ellout” and calling on people to “Stand up to Big Phone and Big Cable.”

And Big Search Google?  And Big Free Phone Skype?  Neither the press release nor the ad so stipulated.

All this over one meeting.  Which is inordinately hypocritical of Free Press, since they themselves have attended eight such FCC meetings since January.

All told (according to the FCC’s log), there have been thirty meetings held this year attended by myriad Media Marxist organizations – Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and others.

So to say that one meeting with some telecom players represents the end of the Media Marxist run on the internet is patently absurd.  To say it so publicly and loudly is even more so – and more than likely a part of the plan.

When Republicans in Congress agreed to that just-for-show date with President Barack Obama to discuss the government usurpation of health care, it gave the Democrats the fraudulent appearance of bipartisanship – after they had spent a year-plus shutting the Republicans out of the process.

Now we’ve had one FCC meeting with some telecom companies – after thirty with the Media Marxists.  With Free Press providing additional cover and attention to it with their absurd press statement and advertisement.

So that later, when the Media Marxists get their way, it can be said that Chairman Genachowski and the FCC heard from both sides.

Much like on health care “reform,” that’s a fraudulent recipe for total disaster.

From the Associated Press:

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a fiery orator versed in the classics and a hard-charging power broker who steered billions of federal dollars to the state of his Depression-era upbringing, died Monday. He was 92.

A spokesman for the family, Jesse Jacobs, said Byrd died peacefully at about 3 a.m. at Inova Hospital in Fairfax, Va. He had been in the hospital since late last week.

At first Byrd was believed to be suffering from heat exhaustion and severe dehydration, but other medical conditions developed. He had been in frail health for several years.

Byrd, a Democrat, was the longest-serving senator in history, holding his seat for more than 50 years. He was the Senate’s majority leader for six of those years and was third in the line of succession to the presidency, behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow West Virginian in the Senate, said it was his “greatest privilege” to serve with Byrd.

“I looked up to him, I fought next to him, and I am deeply saddened that he is gone,” Rockefeller said.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Byrd “combined a devotion to the U.S. Constitution with a deep learning of history to defend the interests of his state and the traditions of the Senate.”

“We will remember him for his fighter’s spirit, his abiding faith, and for the many times he recalled the Senate to its purposes,” McConnell said.

In comportment and style, Byrd often seemed a Senate throwback to a courtlier 19th century. He could recite poetry, quote the Bible, discuss the Constitutional Convention and detail the Peloponnesian Wars—and frequently did in Senate debates.

Yet there was nothing particularly courtly about Byrd’s pursuit or exercise of power.

Continue reading here.

From The Hill:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has been admitted to a Washington-area hospital and is in “seriously ill” condition, his office said in a news release Sunday.

The statement said that Byrd, 92, “was admitted to the hospital late last week suffering from what was believed to be heat exhaustion and severe dehydration as a result of the extreme temperatures.” The region has experienced a stretch of temperatures in the 90s with high humidity.

Byrd’s office said he was not expected to remain in the hospital more than a few days, but “other conditions have developed which has resulted in his condition being described as ’serious.’”

Continue reading here.

In his recent cover story for The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti praises CNBC’s Rick Santelli effusively for erupting against Barack Obama’s redistributionist policies on 19 February 2009 in such a fashion as to inspire the Tea Party Movement. Then, he blasts Fox News commentator Glenn Beck for seizing upon the current crisis as an opportunity for urging on the part of his fellow Americans a serious reconsideration of the country’s first principles.

“What distinguishes Beck from Santelli is,” Continetti writes, “the breadth and depth of his critique.”

In his broadcasts, books, and stage performances, Beck provides his audiences with a dark vision of American life. In this bleak tableaux, rich, highly educated, radical elites are using the instruments of power to control the common man and indoctrinate his children. The elites, Beck says, seized on the 2008 financial crisis to shape America according to their socialist, fascist, globalist vision. The only remaining obstacle to the elitist agenda is the pro-freedom movement that wants to return to America’s founding principles. The elitists fight the patriots by calling them racists and extremists.

Beck is not simply an entertainer. He and his audience love American history. They are hungry for new ways to interpret current events. And Beck is creating, in Amity Shlaes’s words, “a competing canon” of texts and authorities. This competing canon is not content to assault contemporary liberalism, but rather deconstructs the very foundations of the New Deal and the Progressive Era. Among the books Beck regularly cites on his programs are Shlaes’s Forgotten Man, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, Larry Schweickart and Michael Allen’s Patriot’s History of the United States, and Burt Folsom Jr.’s New Deal or Raw Deal? And books like Matthew Spalding’s We Still Hold These Truths, Seth Lipsky’s Citizen’s Constitution, and William J. Bennett and John Cribb’s American Patriot’s Almanac all belong on the list as well.

This intellectual journey has led Beck to some disturbing conclusions. Whereas Rick Santelli says the housing plan and the stimulus aren’t sensible, Beck says the Obama administration is the culmination of 100 years of unconstitutional governance. On the “We Surround Them” episode, Beck said, “The system has been perverted and it has to be restored.” In between bouts of weeping, he asked, “What happened to the country that loved the underdog and stood up for the little guy?” That country, he implied, is vanishing before our eyes. In Beck’s world, politics is less about issues than it is about “us” versus “them.” We may have them surrounded. But “we can’t trust anyone.”

The reason no one can be trusted, Beck says, is that the political system is compromised by the ideology of progressivism. At his keynote speech to the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, Beck wrote the word “progressivism” on a chalkboard and said, “This is the disease. This is the disease in America.” He said again, “Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution.”

When he refers to progressivism, Beck is not only highlighting the liberals’ latest name for liberalism. He is referring to the ideas of John Dewey, Herbert Croly, and Walter Lippmann. According to Beck (and many others), these early 20th-century thinkers believed that there is no such thing as natural right. The Constitution, in their view, was not equipped to deal with the complexities of modern society. They argued that government should do more to protect free competition by busting trusts, and also promote equality and individual development through redistribution. The progressive tendency found political expression in Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech of 1910 and in Woodrow Wilson’s presidency from 1913-1921. It became the foundation for FDR’s New Deal.

Continetti believes that Beck is “engaging in a line of inquiry that – interesting though it may sometimes be – is tangential to the political realities of our day.” Where Beck claims that the “communism and progressivism” are at odds with regard to “means not ends,” contending that “‘there is no difference except [that] one requires a gun and the other does it slowly,’” Continetti retorts that “progressivism is a distinctly American tradition that partly came into being as a way to prevent ideologies like communism and fascism from taking root in the United States,” adding, “Not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly.”

Who is more nearly right? Matthew Continetti or Glenn Beck? Do our problems arise from over-reaching on the part of Barack Obama? Or do they have deeper roots?

I know of no clearer testimony pertinent to this matter than that of Walter Lippmann. As followers of Glenn Beck’s television show presumably know, Lippmann was the prince of the progressives. At Harvard College, he dabbled in socialism. Some four years after his graduation, he joined Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl in founding The New Republic. In 1914, he published the influential progressive tract Drift and Mastery: An Attempt to Diagnose the Current Unrest. For a brief time, during the First World War, Lippmann served as an advisor to Woodrow Wilson. Among other things, he drafted Wilson’s Fourteen-Points Speech

After that war, however, having witnessed the effectiveness of propaganda, Lippmann began to harbor doubts about the progressive conviction that popular sovereignty and governance by experts can easily be reconciled. In Public Opinion, published in 1922, he called into question the capacity of ordinary citizens to discern what was going on; and, in The Phantom Public, published five years later, he expressed doubts as to whether it made any sense at all to speak of the public interest in the manner in which the progressives did: as something radically distinct from and in tension with individual rights and the diverse private interests of the citizens.

In 1932, thinking that there was no alternative, Lippmann voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But by 1937, when the shape of the Second New Deal had become clear, he had come to entertain grave misgivings. And at that point, in a book entitled An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society, he issued a damning judgment – which I quoted at length in my book Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, and which , I believe, we should all take to heart:

Although the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme, and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words. Their weapons are the coercive direction of the life and labor of mankind. Their doctrine is that disorder and misery can be overcome only by more and more compulsory organization. Their promise is that through the power of the state men can be made happy.

Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. They believe in what Mr. Stuart Chase accurately describes as “the overhead planning and control of economic activity.” This is the dogma which all the prevailing dogmas presuppose. This is the mold in which are cast the thought and action of the epoch. No other approach to the regulation of human affairs is seriously considered, or is even conceived as possible. The recently enfranchised masses and the leaders of thought who supply their ideas are almost completely under the spell of this dogma. Only a handful here and there, groups without influence, isolated and disregarded thinkers, continue to challenge it. For the premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states.

But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men. Though the progressives prefer to move gradually and with consideration, by persuading majorities to consent, the only instrument of progress in which they have faith is the coercive agency of government. They can, it would seem, imagine no alternative, nor can they remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion. For virtually all that now passes for progressivism in countries like England and the United States calls for increasing ascendancy of the state: always the cry is for more officials with more power over more and more of the activities of men.

Yet the assumptions of this whole movement are not so self-evident as they seem. They are, in fact, contrary to the assumptions bred in men by the whole long struggle to extricate conscience, intellect, labor, and personality from the bondage of prerogative, privilege, monopoly, authority. For more than two thousand years, since western men first began to think about the social order, the main preoccupation of political thinking has been to find a law which would be superior to arbitrary power. Men have sought it in custom, in the dictates of reason, in religious revelation, endeavoring always to set up some check upon the exercise of force. This is the meaning of the long debate about Natural Law. This is the meaning of a thousand years of struggle to bring the sovereign under a constitution, to establish for the individual and for voluntary associations of men rights which they can enforce against kings, barons, magnates, majorities, and mobs. This it eh meaning of the struggle to separate the church from the state, to emancipate conscience, learning, the arts, education, and commerce from the inquisitor, the censor, the monopolist, the policeman, and the hangman.

Conceivably the lessons of this history no longer have a meaning for us. Conceivably there has come into the world during this generation some new element which makes it necessary for us to undo the work of emancipation, to retrace the steps men have taken to limit the power of rulers, which compels us to believe that the way of enlightenment in affairs is now to be found by intensifying authority and enlarging its scope. But the burden of proof is upon those who reject the oecumenical tradition of the western world. It is for them to show that their cult of the Providential State is in truth the new revelation they think it is, and that it is not, as a few still believe, the gigantic heresy of an apostate generation.

This is a passage that should be read and re-read time and again. The present discontents may be a function of over-reaching on the part of Barack Obama, as Matthew Continetti implies. But the difficulties we now face are also deeply rooted in the prevalence within this country of a political doctrine that has been around for some time; and, as one repentant progressive testified three-quarters of a century ago, the difference between the communists and the progressives turns on means and pace – and not on ends.

I do not have a functioning television set. I have watched Glenn Beck’s show elsewhere only twice. On both occasions, he handled himself well. He may sometimes go overboard. I do not know. But this I can say: the inquiry that he is pursuing is by no means “tangential to the political realities of our day.” It goes to the heart of the matter. If we continue to temporize with progressivism, as we have in the past, there can be no question that we are cooked.

Joe Biden traveled to Wisconsin yesterday to campaign with far left Progressive Russ Feingold (D-WI). Smokin Joe ordered a custard at a popular custard stand in Glendale during one of their stops. When Biden asked Kopp’s Frozen Custard stand owner how much he owed him, the owner responded,

“Nothing, just lower our taxes.”

Fat chance.

An embarrassed Joe Biden ignored him and walked away.

WISN 12 News reported:

A spokesman for the GOP responded to the VP’s visit:

“Vice President Biden probably decided not to take questions today because he didn’t want to fess up as to why Wisconsin has lost over 73,000 jobs since the stimulus was enacted.”

Ouch.

Barack Obama and Angela Merkel are the two main characters in what is being portrayed as a fight between American “stimulus” and European “austerity” at the G-20 summit meeting in Canada. My immediate instinct is to cheer for the Europeans. After all, “austerity” presumably means cutting back on wasteful government spending. Obama’s definition of “stimulus,” by contrast, is borrowing money from China and distributing it to various Democratic-leaning special-interest groups.

But appearances can be deceiving. Austerity, in the European context, means budget balance rather than spending reduction. As such, David Cameron’s proposal to boost the U.K.’s value-added tax from 17.5 percent to 20 percent is supposedly a sign of austerity even though his Chancellor of the Exchequer said a higher tax burden would generate “13 billion pounds we don’t have to find from extra spending cuts.”

Raising taxes to finance a bloated government, to be sure, is not the same as Obama’s strategy of borrowing money to finance a bloated government. But proponents of limited government and economic freedom understandably are underwhelmed by the choice of two big-government approaches.

What matters most, from a fiscal policy perspective, is shrinking the burden of government spending relative to economic output. Europe needs smaller government, not budget balance. According to OECD data, government spending in eurozone nations consumes nearly 51 percent of gross domestic product, almost 10 percentage points higher than the burden of government spending in the United States.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the “austerity” plans of Merkel, Cameron, Sarkozy, et al, will leave the overall burden of government relatively unchanged. That may be good news if the alternative is for government budgets to consume even-larger shares of economic output, but it is far from what is needed.

Unfortunately, the United States no longer offers a competing vision to the European welfare state. Under the big-government policies of Bush and Obama, the share of GDP consumed by government spending has jumped by nearly 8-percentage points in the past 10 years. And with Obama proposing and/or implementing higher income taxes, higher death taxes, higher capital gains taxes, higher payroll taxes, higher dividend taxes, higher business taxes, and a value-added tax, it appears that American-style big-government “stimulus” will soon be matched by European-style big-government “austerity.”

Here’s a blurb from the Christian Science Monitor about the Potemkin Village fiscal fight in Canada:

This weekend’s G-20 summit is shaping up as an economic clash of civilizations – or at least a clash of EU and US economic views. EU officials led by German chancellor Angela Merkel are on a national “austerity” budget cutting offensive as the wisest policy for economic health, ahead of the Toronto summit of 20 large-economy nations. Ms. Merkel Thursday said Germany will continue with $100 billion in cuts that will join similar giant ax strokes in the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and Greece. EU officials say budget austerity promotes the stability and market confidence that are prerequisites for their role in overall recovery. Yet EU pro-austerity statements in the past 48 hours are also defensive – a reaction to public statements from US President Barack Obama and G-20 chairman Lee Myung-bak, South Korea’s president, that the overall effect of national austerity in the EU will harm recovery. They are joined by US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, investor George Soros, and Nobel laureate and columnist Paul Krugman, among others, arguing that austerity works against growth, and may lead to a recessionary spiral.

From Reuters:

In its final estimate on the first quarter on Friday, the Commerce Department said gross domestic product expanded at a 2.7 percent annual rate instead of the 3 percent pace it reported last month.

Although the growth pace was below market expectations for a 3 percent rate, it still marked three straight quarters of expansion as the economy digs out of its most brutal downturn since the 1930s.

However, recent data have suggested the recovery lost some momentum in the second quarter, with persistently high unemployment restraining consumer spending, and home building and purchases faltering.

U.S. stock index futures cut gains on the report, while government debt prices rose. The U.S. dollar extended declines against the yen.

“You are getting growth in fits and starts, rather than an outright contraction. We are not generating real income growth that we like. It’s a recovery that has a real weight on its back,” said Paul Ballew, chief economist at Nationwide in Columbus, Ohio.

The Federal Reserve this week struck a cautious note on the economy and said the recovery was “proceeding.” The economy is, however, not expected to fall back into recession.

Read the whole thing here. As Glenn Reynolds has often noted, the word “unexpectedly” seems to accompany just about every economic report. Unexpectedly is the ‘new black’!

The Little Pink House that changed America still stands strong.

Five years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued what would soon become one of the most despised decisions in its history.  In a controversial 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that governments could take your home—or business, farm or church—and hand it over to another private individual, provided the new owner promised to generate more tax revenue with your property.

The Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm that litigated Kelo and cases like it around the country, just released this video announcing that, while they lost the Kelo battle, they are winning the eminent domain war:

Simply put, the backlash to Kelo has been unprecedented.  In the past five years:

• 9 state high courts have limited eminent domain powers
• 43 state legislatures have passed greater property rights protections
• 44 eminent domain abuse projects have been defeated by grassroots activists
• 88 percent of the public now believe that property rights are as important as free speech and freedom of religion

The U.S. Supreme Court typically leads the state courts, which usually adopt its rulings and interpret state laws in a similar manner.  But with Kelo, the exact opposite happened.  In January 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously to reject the Supreme Court’s eminent domain analysis. The Oklahoma and South Dakota supreme courts soon followed in expressly rejecting the high court decision.  So far, Kelo has prompted nine state high courts to limit eminent domain powers.

The legislative response was also historic.  43 states have enacted statutory reforms or passed constitutional amendments to guarantee greater property rights protection.  35 state reforms include prohibitions against taking property for economic development.  And 22 states made it much more difficult to bulldoze homes in the name of bogus blight.  For detailed look at all 50 states, see the Castle Coalition’s 50 State Report Card.

Perhaps most importantly, the general public let their voices be heard.   Not long ago, eminent domain was a funny sounding legal term that few people knew about.  The Kelo decision sparked an explosion of outrage all across the country.  Americans took to the streets, the air-waves, townhalls, newspapers and the blogosphere to stand up for private property.  Grassroots activists nationwide proved time and again that you can fight city hall and win.  At least 44 eminent domain abuse projects have been defeated by citizen activists post-Kelo.    Over 1,000 community leaders have attended workshops to learn how to successfully fight for their private property rights.

Americans of all political affiliations and backgrounds have joined together to voice their overwhelming opposition to eminent domain abuse.  A recent survey by the Associated Press showed that 75 percent oppose property being taken by government and handed over to private developers; 87 percent oppose eminent domain for redevelopment and 88 percent believe that property rights are just as important as free speech and freedom of religion.

Of course, IJ recognizes that the fight is not over.  Just yesterday, New York’s highest court paved the way for a massive eminent domain abuse project.  A short report titled Five Years After Kelo states that, “challenging work remains to be done in fighting eminent domain abuse.  Weak state reforms must be strengthened.  Moreover, property owners must be vigilant.”

And for the Little Pink House that started it all?

Susette Kelo’s entire neighborhood was bulldozed to make way for the private development project.  75 homes and several businesses were destroyed.  Over $80 million in taxpayer dollars were funneled into the redevelopment project.  And yet, there’s still no construction.  The property sits vacant.  The local paper ran a story, Feral Cats Ignore Eminent Domain, explaining that the only residents of the empty field are cats and birds.

The Kelo cottage was purchased by a preservationist and moved to a neighborhood a mile away, safe from the wrecking ball.    The Little Pink House stands strong and safe, serving as a monument to private property rights and an important reminder that a small group of people committed to a powerful cause can indeed make the world a better place.

In last year’s federal budget, Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky introduced and then withdrew what appears to have been a multi-million dollar earmark for the Save-A-Life Foundation (SALF), a now-defunct nonprofit that claims to have provided first aid training for nearly two million students, many of them in the Chicago Public Schools.

Problem #1: Three years earlier, SALF had been the subject of a series of hard-hitting ABC7 Chicago investigative reports that raised serious questions about every aspect of the organization: its founder, its operations, and its funding.

Problem #2: The Chicago Public Schools can’t or won’t produce records that support SALF’s claims.

Problem #3: Rep. Schakowsky won’t answer easy questions like these:  What was the dollar amount of her intended earmark for SALF? Why was she funding a non-profit that years before had been the subject of four scorching ABC7 exposes? What’s her relationship with the charity’s founder/president Carol J. Spizzirri, a convicted shoplifter who obtained millions in federal and state funds over the years? Does Rep. Schakowsky think SALF should be investigated in order to determine if those millions were properly spend?

The Progressive Politician

Jan Schakowsky’s district is north of Chicago and includes Evanston, Skokie, and west to Des Plaines. She’s the Democrat’s Chief Deputy Whip in the House and serves on the Steering and Policy Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and chairs the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. A member of the Democratic Progressive Caucus, she’s considered one of the most liberal members in Congress.

The Discredited Foundation

A recent American Thinker article provided an overview of the Save-A-Life Foundation and asked why SALF employee turned whistleblower Annabel Melongo is now in Cook County Jail with a $300,000 bond for a minor felony charge of “eavesdropping.” From 1993 until it folded September 17, 2009, SALF received “at least $8.6 million in federal and state grants” as well as funding from the Ronald McDonald House, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and other foundations.

SALF also enjoyed support from a host of powerful public officials on both sides of the aisle including, but not limited to: IL Sen. Dick Durbin; IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan; Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan (Lisa’s father); U.S. Secretary of Education and former CEO of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Arne Duncan: and current Republican senatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk.

SALF began unraveling in November 2006 when Chicago’s ABC7 aired the first of a series of investigative reports that exposed dubious claims about the numbers of students trained and that Spizzirri was not a Registered Nurse with a four-year college degree as she claimed. Most shocking, Spizzirri and her organization altered the facts surrounding her 18-year-old daughter’s death in a Labor Day 1992 car crash, presumably to enhance fundraising. When ABC7 Chicago reporter Chuck Goudie confronted Spizzirri about it, she stormed out of the interview.

On May 31, 2007, ABC7 broadcast the fourth Goudie story. It began with the statement that “Save-A-Life’s main government funding may be drying up.” In an interview with now-retired Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr., he acted as if he’d never even heard of Spizzirri’s organization, let alone helped fund it. But two years later, blogger Doug Ross uploaded tax documents that identified Sen. Jones, Barack Obama’s political mentor, as one of their corporate officers.

The Mystery Earmark

But, as Ross first reported, SALF’s government funding didn’t dry up in 2007. According to her press secretary Sarah Baldauf, Rep. Schakowsky submitted an earmark for SALF in February 2008 for the 2009 federal budget. Later, Schakowsky withdrew the earmark when the organization began having “troubles,” according to Baldauf, a former health writer for U.S. News & World Report. So Big Government submitted these questions to Baldauf in hopes of getting answers from her boss:

(1) ABC News Chicago investigative reporter Chuck Goudie’s four reports on SALF aired from Nov 2006 – May 2007. The Congresswoman pulled support for the SALF earmarks sometime after she originally proposed them in Feb 2008, 9-10 months after Goudie’s reports.

(a) What prompted the delay in withdrawing her support for the earmarks, particularly since the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) had ceased doing business with SALF as was communicated by DPS CEO Arne Duncan in a letter to SALF founder and director Carol Spizzirri in December 2005?

(b) Was Congresswoman Schakowsky unaware of the turmoil surrounding SALF? Or, was she misled as to the seriousness of the allegations against SALF by Spizzirri, ex-Palatine Mayor Rita Mullins [Spizzirri’s partner running SALF], or someone related to SALF in an official or unofficial capacity?

(2) SALF received, over the years of its operation, $2,633,000 in grants from the CDC. Has Congresswoman Schakowsky ever called for an investigation concerning whether those federal grant monies, and any other federal grant monies, were properly expended by SALF? If not, why not?

(3) What was the amount of the SALF earmarks Congresswoman Schakowsky originally proposed for the FY 2009 budget?

Despite multiple follow-up queries, here’s the only response Baldauf would provide:

As I’ve said, the Congresswoman withdrew her support for SALF when she learned of the group’s troubles. She never helped secure any money for the foundation.

Since Schakowsky’s husband went to prison for financial fraud involving another nonprofit of which she was a board member, you’d think she’d be more sensitive about such things. Instead, she gives the brush-off to those asking questions.

From today’s Politico:

An all-night House-Senate conference committee delivered President Barack Obama and Democrats a far-reaching and historic achievement Friday – a realignment of the rules that govern Wall Street and a second victory toward Obama’s legislative triple crown.

The compromise bill now goes to the House and Senate for approval. For all the messiness of the process, financial reform and March’s health care reform win cumulatively make clear Obama and Democrats are governing in consequential ways – and once again Friday, without a single Republican vote. The results make clear the argument over Obama is no longer whether he’s effective or not, but whether voters will like the results.

The agreement came at 5:39 a.m., after 20 straight hours of work in the committee, a marathon session that tested the negotiating skills, patience and endurance of several dozen lawmakers tasked with reconciling two competing approaches to reining in Wall Street.

But it left no doubt about the mark Obama has left on his twin Democratic majorities in Congress – reluctant, even recalcitrant at times, but in the end, doing his bidding to remake two of the most important sectors of the U.S. economy.

His hoped-for third act – a wide-ranging climate change and energy bill – is next on Obama’s docket, and absent these successes, it would be easy to believe there was simply no way he could bend Congress to his will yet again, with midterms looming, poll numbers sagging and the nation’s financial coffers tapped out.

But Obama plans to press his advantage – to try to salvage one more legislative win out of the depths of the BP oil spill tragedy. He’s invited what amounts to the bipartisan Senate climate caucus to the White House Tuesday to plot out a way ahead.

Continue reading here.

In the wake of the BP oil spill, efforts have been afoot on the part of the Obama administration to ban drilling off the U.S. coast outright, ostensibly to stop future disasters like that which continues to unfold in the Gulf.

Part of the rationale for such a proposed moratorium is the notion that BP’s practices were not uniquely bad among industry actors, but rather typical and common—a conclusion that appears to be reinforced by a cursory glance at records obtained from the Department of the Interior, as written up by Greenwire today:

To look at the safety records of the offshore drilling companies before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank on April 20, there was little difference between BP America Inc. and its peers in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

But in a revelation that Big Government readers are unlikely to find surprising, sources tell Capitol Confidential that a broader review of relevant governmental data demonstrates that in fact, BP had a far worse record on safety matters than other oil companies.

Indeed, by one measure, BP’s practices were exponentially less safe than those of environmentalists’ favorite oil industry bogeyman— Exxon-Mobil—a conclusion BP opponents say may support the proposition that a lighter touch regulatory approach, which does not punish companies with good safety records and standards, is more appropriate than a ban.

According to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) data compiled and detailed to Capitol Confidential, two refineries owned by BP accounted for an astonishing 97 percent of the most serious violations flagged by government inspectors in the last three years.

Furthermore, of a total 862 citations issued between June 2007 and February 2010 at the two refineries, a stunning 760 were deemed “egregious willful,” with a further 69 classified as “willful.”  Shockingly, Exxon-Mobil—widely considered by many environmentalists and liberals itself to be the ultimate bad actor—received only one “egregious willful” citation.  Why did OSHA cite BP for more “egregious willful” violations than other companies?  Capitol Confidential’s sources indicate that BP, unlike other companies, not only messed up; the company had also failed to take corrective action when problems were flagged.

In addition, of about 850 “willful” violations among refiners cited by OSHA during the period for which data was provided and analyzed, BP accounted for nearly 830 of them.   While OSHA has previously said its concerns are not restricted to BP, OSHA citations, regardless of level, have been heavily imbalanced in BP’s favor.  Between June 2007 and February 2010, Sunoco Inc., ConocoPhilips and Citgo, had been issued just over 100 citations each, with just a handful being deemed “willful.”

This data deserves to be highlighted, sources say, for various reasons.  First, a moratorium threatens thousands of jobs across the Southeast, opponents charge unjustifiably, and closes off energy production in an “anti-capitalistic” fashion.  Second, however, BP critics say that in the absence of a review of the full data, BP may be being let off too lightly in the court of public opinion and dismissed as “just another oil company,” when in fact, much of the data suggests that is not so.

For now, the Obama administration’s proposed moratorium has been forcibly shelved, but as debate continues over BP’s role in the disaster, this data is bound to get a better airing—especially by those who charge that BP’s practices are neither best, nor emblematic of the oil industry, and who resent being tarred with the BP brush.  Likewise, government’s role in preventing this disaster rather than enabling an actor now universally regarded as “bad” is likely to bear further scrutiny.

The House Financial Services Committee voted Wednesday to launch an investigation of the ShoreBank bailout, a scandal that was first revealed here at BigGovernment.com. Of the dozens of banks that have failed this year, only ShoreBank received help from Washington and Wall Street. The reasons: its connections to the White House, its close relationship with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and its importance to the radical left.

After I broke the story in January, other bloggers, notably the Central Illinois 9/12 project, connected more of the dots. Soon, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and even the New York Times began following the story. Two weeks ago, my campaign joined Rev. Isaac Hayes (who is challenging Jesse Jackson, Jr. in IL-2) and the Illinois Tea Party in a spirited protest outside ShoreBank’s offices on LaSalle Street in downtown Chicago.

Representatives Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) took up the cause and demanded answers about the White House’s role. Suddenly, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve began backing away from the bailout. That triggered a public attack on Treasury secretary Tim Geithner by the Illinois Finance Authority. Finally, Rep. Biggert succeeded in inserting an investigation of ShoreBank into the financial reform bill.

The financial reform bill is still a job-killer.  But if it does pass, the consolation is that Congress will investigate the ShoreBank bailout. The fact that a bipartisan committee managed to agree on the investigation shows how important the allegations are.

Meanwhile, the ShoreBank bailout is still on hold. Thanks to bloggers, the much-maligned Tea Party, and bold leadership on Capitol Hill, we have stopped a corrupt bailout, against overwhelming odds!

That’s because when the entire country is hurting and the private sector continues to lose jobs, bureaucrats are being hired.

The following chart makes that case. Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one.  And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.

Plus, as you know, according to the latest numbers from Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average federal civilian worker now earns double what private-sector workers earn when factoring in wages and benefits ($119,982 vs. $59,909). And the gap is increasing.  According to Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, in 2000, the average federal worker earned 66 percent more in total compensation than the average private-sector worker. By 2008, that ratio had risen to 100 percent. That’s serious money.

Peter Orszag, the soon to be leaving OMB director, has  explained the differences in pay by saying that public employees have more diplomas (probably implying that they are smarter) than private employees:

But the truth is that a comparison of federal and private-sector pay, even by occupation, is misleading because the employees hired by the federal government often have higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector — even within the same occupations.  When you factor in the education and experience of the federal workforce, there is no statistically significant difference in average pay levels.

Edwards, however, shows this is nonsense. He writes:

Some people argue that the federal government has a unique high-end workforce, which deserves to be paid handsomely. But let’s consider some ordinary and mundane offices in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2010, the USDA’s Office of Communications employed 77 people and paid $9 million in wages and benefits. That works out to $117,000 each for these public relations workers, which is close to the overall federal compensation average. Or consider that the 62 employees of the USDA’s Office of Chief Economist earned an average $177,000 each in wages and benefits in 2010. It isn’t just rocket scientists that are earning high federal compensation, it is also workers in many run-of-the-mill bureaucratic jobs.

More importantly, the federal workforce has always had a heavy contingent of skilled professionals such as lawyers. So that is not new, and thus it cannot explain the dramatically faster growth in federal compensation compared to private compensation [...].

Besides, if these diplomas are what gave is the health care reform, the financial bill making its way to Congress and the stimulus, then I would argue that we would be better off if  high-school dropouts to run Congress.

That being said, if bureaucrats have job security, their workforce grows during recession, and they make increasingly more money, being a proud public sector employee should become your little ones’ dream. In this context, wanting to be a fireman or a princess is so yesterday.

A federal judge has, for the moment, spared already-suffering Gulf state residents from the brunt of President Obama’s most recent anti-energy Power Grab. It has enjoined the administration from implementing its moratorium on deepwater drilling. The Order is here, and the Opinion here.

The administration has vowed to appeal. Regardless of the outcome, this victory is temporary. As I detail in Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, Obama and his administration are committed to strangling domestic energy production. At the same time they promise to also clamp down on the cost of consumption, all in a way that makes our last energy-poverty president, Jimmy Carter, appear a free-market pioneer.

This was telegraphed immediately after Obama’s inauguration by his by administration revoking massive tracts of public land from possible lease for domestic energy production, even to the point of suspending lease agreements already struck.

None of this is either accident or coincidence, but affirmed as a deliberate plan by Obama’s concurrent clamp-down on families’ access to energy with a cap-and-trade scheme he vowed would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”. Though he dared not speak the scheme’s name, Obama renewed his support for it in his Oval Office speech last Tuesday by praising the House-passed bill.

Then, he also restated his threat of imposing central planning in the guise of the state engineering a “green economy”. Although last week he also suddenly dropped reference to his specific European models – because those countries like Spain have now admitted the devastation they caused, after his praise brought scrutiny – we know that even Europe has refused to ban production of domestic energy resources.

From the moratorium blocked by a federal judge today, pending appeal by Obama, to the planned “lame-duck” Congress-wide passage of the “cap-and-trade” energy tax, Obama is affirming all that he telegraphed and which is laid out in detail in Power Grab.

The longest days of summer are proving to be even longer days for Obama.  His approval ratings are mired in the mid 40s, primaries herald losses for Democrats and the Gulf Oil spill is turning out to be more slippery for Obama than BP.  All in all, Obama is failing both Alinsky and Michael Dukakis and the Democrats are headed toward losing the House.

In 2009, Obama chose confrontational politics.  He appointed Rahm Emanuel, known more for his hard ball tactics than his diplomacy, for his Chief of Staff.  Out of the gate, he pushed through a “stimulus” bill along partisan lines instead of seeking a bi-partisan solution, i.e. a mixture of tax cuts, regulatory relief and federal spending in lieu of pure deficit spending.  Obama then proceeded to push Cap and Trade and Health Care – again along strictly partisan lines.  In doing so, his administration spoke more than disparagingly of those opposing his policies.  To many, Obama was outright demonizing his opponents much like Saul Alinksy would advocate.

As the calendar turned onward, and the economy predictably failed to turn upward, the Democrats and the Obama Administration received the shock of a Kennedy lifetime when the otherwise barely known Scott Brown pulled off a stunning victory by taking the “Kennedy seat” away from the Democrats and giving it back to the people.  Unbowed by such political tea leaves, and warnings from prognosticators, Obama pushed the Health Care Bill through along partisan lines and with the promise that people will be able to keep their existing health care.  Now nearly 60% of Americans want that bill repealed and that is before the emerging stories about not being able to keep their existing health care, based on the regulations being written, have begun to take hold.

Then came the Gulf Oil spill.  At first, Obama nearly ignored the emerging problem.  Since then, he “sued” BP and alternatively claimed he was in control but that there was nothing he could really do.  It is rather known, at this point however, that he could have easily waived the Jones Act to allow non-union remediation efforts and he could have accepted foreign help that would have reduced to scope of the spill.  So bad is his performance that even his most staunch supporters on the far Left have questioned his ability to command.

All of which bring us back to Alinksy and Dukakis.

Alinksy’s methodology is meant for an insurgency and is dependent on ideological confrontation.  It is not one that fares well with half measures.  Yet over the last year Obama has drawn derision on the Left for being able to achieve only half measures even though the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House.

As for Dukakis, he famously campaigned for the Presidency asserting that that election was about “competency not ideology.”  While the Country never had to endure Dukakis’ brand of competency back in the late 1980s, they have seen Obama’s failures first hand.

The Presidency, however, is not about an insurgency, it is about building consensus.  It is also non-ideological to the extent that it requires its Commander in Chief to effectively deal to crises and day-today problems – competently.  Obama is demonstrating his lack of experience and ability along with his lack of historical understanding and ability to learn about the Presidency.  In the final analysis, likely to be made this fall and in 2012, it is those failures that will define Obama and the Democrats.

While the White House really, really wants you believe that they have their boot on the neck of BP, it turns out that a key Administration official had his head inserted somewhere else just three short years ago. Do you think NOBEL LAUREATE (and Secretary of Energy) Steven Chu still thinks BP is going to help save the world?

This is one of the ironies of the disaster in the Gulf. From all available evidence, BP is as committed as anyone to the “comprehensive energy reform” agenda of the White House. No doubt this reflects both political realism and market opportunism on their part, but BP’s 2009 “Road Map for America’s Energy Future” could have been written by John Kerry. Higher energy prices, cap and trade? Bring it on, says BP.

And this isn’t a recent shift on BP’s part. Here’s embattled BP Chairman Tony Hayward back in June 2007:

From BP’s perspective, the evidence that climate change is happening, and that it is manmade, is mounting all the time. As the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found, the evidence is almost overwhelming. We could wait until the science is 100% certain, but BP believes that, as an energy company, it has a duty to act pre-emptively. When you balance the likely impacts of not taking action against the real opportunities that exist to take action, it is difficult to believe that humanity will not move towards a solution to climate change…

We need to ensure that the costs of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are included in the price we pay for everything – whether it be a television, a train journey, or switching on a light – all should reflect the cost of emissions in their price.

This can be achieved through a Cap and Trade system, taxation, or regulation.

So it makes perfect sense that back in 2007 Steven Chu and UC Berkeley would be more than happy to accept a $500 million investment from BP to form the Energy BioSciences Institute. The relationship between Chu and BP was so cozy in fact that Chu subsequently brought on BP’s Chief Scientist Steve Koonin as an undersecretary at the Department of Energy.

My guess is that this history – and these relationships – played a part in the Administration’s initial confusion over whether BP was a “partner” in the effort to resolve the Gulf spill. Because for many within the Administration BP had been one of the good guys.

This also explains why BP has been so willing to prostrate themselves in front of their Democratic overlords in Congress and the White House. Here they thought they were trusted partners in saving the world from impending climate disaster. It turns out that their allies in the Obama Administration might soon be the only thing saving BP from the anger of a raging public…and insolvency.

Shortly after President Obama assumed the Commander-in-Chief duties, he retired the existing commanding general in Afghanistan and hand-picked his successor: General Stanley McChrystal.  McChrystal was always known as a brash and outspoken military man, an expert in counterinsurgency, greatly respected by the troops under his command, and as having little patience for fools.

His requirement to have to answer to Obama, then, was a trainwreck waiting to happen.

Last year, McChrystal made no secret of his desire to have as many as 80,000 additional troops to press the fight in Afghanistan.  He went to the press to state that objective and to dismiss those, like VP Joe Biden, who opposed any kind of surge.

That outspokenness got him into trouble: Obama summoned him aboard Air Force One in Europe and dressed him down a bit.  And while McChrystal was right on policy (never commit militarily to an operation without committing overwhelming force and having a clear plan), he was wrong to go public with his troop level requests, and his concerns and reservations.

Today we’ve got another trainwreck smash-up.

McChrystal is being recalled to the White House to meet with Obama tomorrow to explain disrespectful comments he and his aides made to Rolling Stone magazine about Obama, Biden, other top national security officials, and the war strategy.  Once again, McChrystal is right on policy (Obama is a destructive, disengaged, uninterested fool whose withdrawal timetable and
ridiculous hamstringing rules of engaement are costing us lives and progress), but he was wrong to go public with that criticism.

Obama will decide if he’s Harry Truman and McChrystal is Douglas MacArthur.

But there are 2 big points to consider as this story unfolds:

1.  McChyrstal is a four star general, graduate of West Point, has extensive combat experience and a chest full of medals.  In other words, he knows what he’s doing.  This was NOT a mistake.  These comments were not “off the cuff” or limited to just one or two flippant remarks.  And the interview was deliberately given to far-Left, anti-war Rolling Stone.  None of this was a
coincidence.

That can only mean one thing:  that McChrystal is playing a game of chicken with Obama.  He was daring Obama to respond.  Obama runs a huge risk if he fires him.  If the war goes under, it’ll be Obama’s fault for firing an insubordinate and prickly but effective general.  If he doesn’t fire him, he may look weak and McChrystal will likely feel freer to do what he needs to do to win on the battlefield.  Either way: McChrystal has made his point.

2.  Many are asking today:  Does Obama still have the necessary trust and confidence in McChrystal?  I think the more appropriate and important question is:  Does McChrystal have ANY trust and confidence in the Commander-in-Chief?

You knew this was coming. From the Associated Press:

The White House announcement comes as administration officials meet privately with state insurance commissioners, and CEOs of major insurance companies, amid concerns over continued premium hikes. Obama was expected to attend at least part of the session, and is scheduled to make a speech later.

Consumers who buy their policies directly faced increases averaging 20 percent this year, according to a survey released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Although most Americans are covered on the job, about 14 million purchase insurance on the individual market and have the least bargaining power when it comes to costs.

It’s still unclear how insurance companies will price the new guaranteed coverage for children. If premiums are too high, families may still be unable to get health insurance.

Entire article here.

___

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…

Last week Barack Obama told Politico that the BP oil spill was like 9-11–
But, it’s been over 60 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and he’s only sent 20 of 2,000 US oil skimmer boats to the coast of Florida.

Senator George LeMieux of Florida told the Shark Tank that there are only 20 skimmer boats off the coast of Florida out of 2,000 available skimmer boats in the United States. Lemieux says that Obama is afraid to move them to Florida because there won’t be any in place in case there is an oil leak somewhere else.

…That sounds like Obama.

Via the Shark Tank:

Senator Lemieux is keeping a count on the number of skimmer boats the adminstration has working off the Florida coast on his website:

Yesterday, Senator Lemieux requested a daily skimmer count update from the adminstration.

There have been calls to bring in more skimmer boats for at least two weeks but they have been ignored.

22 Countires have also offered to bring in their skimmer boats.
Florida News Capital reported:

Florida has a new point man to help speed up the response efforts to the BP oil leak. U.S. Coast Guard Commander Joe Boudrow (Boo-Dro –oh) will work to secure more equipment and help organize beach clean up efforts for the state. As Whitney Ray tells us, his first marching orders… bring more skimmers to Florida.

I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
-General Stanley McChrystal, 6/22/2010

The interview of General McChrystal and his in Rolling Stone was not an accident, it’s a perfect  example of suicide by interview.  The General knew that every criticism would be “on the record.”  He also knew that the President will have no choice but to relieve the General of his command after their meeting tomorrow. The Military Code of Justice  provides that a General does not criticize the Commander-in-Chief publicly however,  the General criticized  Obama in a major way and even picked the perfect vehicle to do it in the most visible of ways.

McChrystal’s statements clearly point to the fact that he believes the war cannot be won under the President’s parameters, a tepid escalation to protect the president from his political supports. McChrystal  is clearly frustrated by  Barack Obama and his administration and finds it necessary to protect his men. He finds himself having to take radical steps to protect his troops in the face of an administration trying to fight a war on a half-assed basis.

According to Fox, Some of the highlights of the up-coming article include:

• Although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops. The President did not want to hear his advice. “I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

• It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing the early meeting with Obama as a “10-minute photo op.Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed,” the adviser told the magazine.

• The military is clearly unhappy about Obama’s arbitrary deadline of July of next year. The White House’s troop commitment was toed a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011. Counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.

• The article list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts the SCHMOTUS (Schmo of the United States), Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don’t. The article says McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”

• Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by the SHMOTUS  last fall (fewer troops, more drone attacks), McChrystal and his aides attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal  joked. “Who’s that?” “Biden?” one aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?”

• Another aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.

• Some of the strongest criticism, however, was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “The boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” one of the general’s aides was quoted as saying. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

• If Eikenberry had doubts about the troop buildup, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute. McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover. Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”‘

McChrystal is a Four-Star General, a position you do not achieve by being an idiot. Today’s military leadership is well schooled not only in war-making but in diplomacy.  He knew what the content of the article would be. He also knew that the article would lead his own dismissal (or the proverbial resignation letter where he says he’s quitting to spend more time with his family).

The Rolling Stone interview highlights the difference in the leadership styles of the President and the General. When this President faces a crisis,  he looks for someone either internally or externally to blame. On the other hand, the General sees the War in Afghanistan reaching a crisis point because of the way it is being waged, rather than looking to find a scapegoat in his ranks as Obama would do, McChrystal found a way to let the country know what is really happening, while at the same time redirect any criticism for the war effort, away from his men and on to his own wide shoulders.

Notice that even in his apology above,the General does not take back the comments, he simply apologizes for making the comments. The Military commander was sending his troops and the administration a message.  To the troops he was saying ” I have your backs even to the point of hurting my own career.” The message for the administration was, “Your way isn’t working,  let us do what is necessary to win this war.  Even though this was a violation of the Code of Honor, the General’s statements were a service to America and to his men by confirming what we all suspected, the President and his administration does not have a clue.

Bad news today for President Obama, his Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, and other proponents of the idea that the United States can safely reach out to “moderate” elements within terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban.  In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that no distinction can be made between violent and non-violent wings of such groups and that the former will be beneficiaries of whatever “material support” is given them.

As Stephen Landman of the indispensable Investigative Project on Terrorism’s IPT News reported in a post Monday:

“The court roundly rejected the claims that there’s a distinction between aid to a terrorist group’s “social” wing, as opposed to its military wing….:

Material support meant to “promote peaceable, lawful conduct” can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.

As a result of this ruling upholding the material support statute, it remains illegal to provide to designated terrorist groups “any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

The Court found:  “Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE): ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”

The ruling in Holder v. The Humanitarian Law Project also determined that: “Material support meant to ‘promote peaceable, lawful conduct’ can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do.  It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order.  Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

What is more, the Supremes’ ruling in this case essentially upholds a landmark en banc opinion issued last year by the 7th Circuit in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation.  The latter decision written for the majority by highly esteemed Judge Richard Posner found that a contribution made to an organization embracing a doctrine like Shariah that calls on its adherents to engage in jihad amounts to material support.  This outcome was particularly gratifying for the Center for Security Policy as it filed an amicus brief in the case making precisely that argument.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court actually endorsed a broad interpretation of the material support statute.  Solicitor General Elena Kagan espoused the view that the law regulates conduct only, not speech per se. The Court found that the statute does indeed regulate speech and that Congress can criminalize speech on behalf of a known terrorist organization – even if such speech is for legal ends, as long as that speech also provides material support to said organization.

Accordingly, it appears that, for example, if an imam were to issue a Shariah fatwa “to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations,” he would be guilty of violation of the material support statute.  This could constitute a powerful new tool for countering the stealth jihad inside the United States.

By the same token, the Supreme Court ruling would apply to overseas activities as well, such as the so-called “humanitarian flotilla” that sought to break Israel’s naval blockade of Hamastan in Gaza.  Any U.S. organization that coordinated their support for this affair with Hamas in any way would be guilty of providing material support in violation of the statute.

In short, the top court in a federal judiciary that has in recent years handed a succession of victories to America’s terrorist foes – dare we call it “material support? – has rendered a decision in Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project of signal importance.  It now behooves the Obama administration to conform its own policies and behavior to the letter and spirit of this sensible ruling, even as it enforces the law vigorously.

Barack Obama’s problem with top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McCrystal is one of his own making.

McCrystal and his staff – in a much-ballyhooed article in Rolling Stone set to be published on Friday – are reportedly disdainful and disrespectful to the White House, Afghanistan envoy retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry and Vice President Biden.  That they were cannot be an accident.  McCrystal (and his boss, Gen. David Petraeus) were uncharacteristically vocal in the months Obama pondered his Afghanistan strategy.  They didn’t trust Obama then, and don’t now.

Obama chose McCrystal to command the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan (read “nation-building” for “counterinsurgency”).  Both McCrystal and Petraeus (who helped draft the plan) agreed with President Obama’s July 2011 deadline for the campaign.

But it was – and is metaphysically impossible for the plan to work, as Petraeus and McCrystal both knew.  A counterinsurgency can succeed, but only with an open-ended commitment to it, and a decisive action to end the involvement of out-of-country allies of the insurgents.

Simply put, basing a strategy on nation-building is the catastrophic mistake that George W. Bush made in Iraq that Obama is now compounding in Afghanistan.

First, you cannot defeat an insurgency without providing both long-term security and offering a form of government more attractive to the populace than the insurgent offers.  Neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan is there such a form of government offered – far less credibly offered – to the population.  And in neither place can we offer security for any length of time past the moment the last US trooper climbs into a truck to head to the airport for a flight home.

Second, neither Bush in Iraq or Afghanistan nor Obama in the latter has been willing to even admit that Iran and other nations’ intervention in support of the insurgents in both countries is the deciding factor in the insurgents’ campaigns.  So long as the outside support pours in, the insurgents stay on the attack.  And so they will in Afghanistan, long past the July 2011 deadline.

So as Stanley McCrystal comes back to Washington this week for a proper scolding by the president, what choice does Obama have?

He can’t fire McCrystal without giving McCrystal’s successor more time to accomplish the mission.  If McCrystal is fired this week, how can anyone replace him and be expected to win in the next twelve months?

I predict McCrystal won’t be fired for that reason alone.  It’s vastly more important to Obama to maintain the July 2011 withdrawal date than it is to succeed.  McCrystal will be scolded, maybe even publicly, by Obama and sent back to do what the general and his military superiors must know is an impossible mission.

Recent reports of Florida’s governor, Charlie Crist, inspecting the beaches of Miami seem to be more of a photo oops than anything else.   Obviously, I’m sure he’s concerned with his state, the revenue lost from canceled vacations, and the impending negative effects environmental disaster from the BP oil spill, it remains curious, though, why he hasn’t been back to the Gulf coast since early June.   Instead he has recently traveled to Miami and Disney World–in central Florida–to address the spill.  Yes, he’s touting that Florida’s hot spots are safe, but more attention needs to be paid by the governor to the Gulf coast.

Meanwhile, the Florida beach report states:

The beaches and waters at tourist hot spots like Destin, Fort Walton Beach and Okaloosa Island are open, according to the Emerald Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau, which represents the three destinations.

“The air here is also still fresh and clean, with no smell of oil whatsoever,” the bureau’s website said.

This beaches may very well be open, but the conditions of the beaches are debatable.  Swimmers I have interviewed at Destin have reported being covered in a gloss of oil after swimming in the Gulf, the water is not clear, and piles of oil-soaked dead seaweed have washed up on the shore.

Additionally, this is what the Destin shore looks on June 17, 2010.  This picture is not algea, it is of oil-soaked seaweed washing up on the beaches in large quantities.

They may want to change the beach report and Governor Crist, you may want to schedule another trip up to the panhandle for evaluation purposes and get some engineers and other experts in to protect your state.

Amidst all the political jockeying over the BP catastrophe, the main players are missing what is really uppermost on America’s mind: It’s the spill rate, stupid. It’s jobs, stupid. It’s the economy, stupid. And none of it is happening.

All eyes in Washington, Wall Street, and Main Street were turned this week to the congressional show trial featuring beleaguered BP CEO Tony Hayward. Hayward was a disaster. He played dumb. He stonewalled. And he never got honest about the colossal failure of human judgment at BP that caused this catastrophe.

But folks, seriously, what did you expect? Before this thing is said and done, Hayward and others at BP may very well be criminally indicted by the Justice Department. Hayward could eventually do hard time for all I know. So, of course, he stonewalled. Thank Eric Holder.

What Hayward should at least have done is talk about the progress being made in capping the spill rate, which is gradually going down. To most Americans, and especially those in the Gulf, it’s the spill rate of capture that matters most. Hayward also should have talked about the new BP relief well, which could be up and running in less than a month, to end this disaster. That would be great news for America, and her economy and stock market. Plus, he could have mentioned that BP is hiring thousands of workers to fill new jobs in the cleanup effort.

But Hayward was lawyered to the gills, which doesn’t make anyone happy, including me. And that’s precisely why these congressional show trials leave me bored, tired, and depressed.

And oh, by the way, what’s the role of Congress in this catastrophe? What exactly is it doing besides presiding over these show trials? Doesn’t it have oversight authority when it comes to the Minerals Management Service that utterly failed to regulate the safety of BP’s deep-water drilling operations? Why aren’t more people talking about this?

And why in the world hasn’t Congress suspended the Jones Act, thereby allowing foreign-flag tankers into the Gulf area? What is it waiting for? We’re basically two months into this never-ending disaster. The Gulf cleanup could have been greatly aided by at least 15 foreign countries that were instead spurned after offering their tankers and other equipment. Why aren’t we accepting these offers of help?

And where, really, is the president in all this? Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office earlier in the week, he failed to declare a Jones Act waiver, and he made no call for a task force of hands-on oilmen from the likes of ExxonMobil and other big oil sisters who actually know what they are doing.

Another problem with Obama’s address was his arrogant announcement that he would inform BP’s CEO “that he is to set aside” an asset amount ($20 billion) for the government-run escrow fund to pay for the spill damages. Trouble is, there are no laws to permit our government to force such financial retribution. Not even a new TARP, at least not yet. Did someone say nationalization?

The government has no right interfering with the financial decisions of a private, shareholder-owned corporation. This sounds like GM and Chrysler all over again. Or maybe health insurers, pharmaceuticals, private investment funds, and multinational corporations. And it could end up having a serious and chilling effect on corporate investment.

Look, at least BP already agreed to pony up. Why should the government control this? Isn’t this another case of the Obama administration bullying, taxing, and regulating business as part of a social agenda to redistribute income and power from private enterprise to government? It’s a war on profits and capital.

Consider this: American companies are sitting on an astonishing pile of $1.5 trillion in unused cash. Why aren’t they investing to create new jobs? Well, it’s because massive tax and regulatory threats coming out of Washington have created a tall barrier of disincentives and uncertainty that is blocking the normal efficiency of the free-market capitalist system.

The instincts of our free economy are to promote growth. But when government blunts these instincts, the system ceases to work efficiently.

Americans do not want a cap-and-trade system. What they do want is a full-throated and comprehensive energy plan conducted on all fronts — carbon and non-carbon — that would unleash energy entrepreneurs and existing businesses to create more power and more jobs and more economic growth. Besides stopping the spill, this is the key point that Obama misses.

So, if BP is dirty, and if BP is incompetent, then so is Congress. And so is the White House, as far as I’m concerned.

The BP story is a total outrage. Once again America is not getting what it needs.

The former communists running Russia apparently understand tax policy better than the crowd in charge of U.S. tax policy. Not only does Russia have a 13 percent flat tax, but the government has just announced it will eliminate the capital gains tax (which shouldn’t exist in a pure flat tax anyhow).

Here’s a passage from the BBC report:

Russia will scrap capital gains tax on long-term direct investment from 2011, President Dmitry Medvedev has said. …Mr Medvedev told the St Petersburg International Economic Forum that long-term direct investment was “necessary for modernisation”. …Its oil revenues fund, which has been financing the deficit, is expected to end next year, and the government wants to attract more foreign investment to boost the economy.

Sounds like President Medvedev has watched the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s video explaining why there should be no capital gains tax. Now we just need to get American politicians to pay attention.

In a June 14th editorial entitled “Politicizing the Fed,” the Wall Street Journal sheds light on one of the dubious regulations of the upcoming financial reform bill.  The Journal states:

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled “Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce.” Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to “establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.”

So what else is new, you say? Don’t the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit.

[...]

The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate.The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”  The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”

The law says this diversity czar will “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with “increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conducting “an assessment” of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for “affordable housing,” Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender.

In an article I wrote on February 28th entitled “Fiscal Death by Welfare,” I argued: “I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks…”  I truly wish I had been wrong in my assessment.

Note that this is not to say that minorities or women are bad credit risks, but that based upon prior social engineering experiments in which government has intervened to force lending, we have seen that the worst credit risks are the ones who most benefited at the outset, to the detriment of themselves and all taxpayers at the day of reckoning.

Too, any government forcing of credit necessarily reflects a bad credit risk, because in lieu of government intervention, market actors would already properly allocate credit to anyone, regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity, at an interest rate reflective of their risk profile.  If lenders were to discriminate on the basis of non-economic reasons, than other competitors would see this void and fill it.  This principle is reflected for example in the old days when in response to the so-called WASP investment banks, Jews built their own ones to fill the vacuum of talent being ignored by white-shoe firms.  Private self-interest works in the face of discrimination.  Public self-interest creates discrimination.

Why is forced allocation of credit to certain sectors of society harmful?  Forced allocation of credit means mispricing of credit which leads to market distortions that manifest into bubbles and crashes.

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the risk profile of the borrower.  Lenders assess the ability of a borrower to pay back a loan and determine a proper compensatory rate based upon the opportunity cost and risk involved with leaving the cash with such a borrower over a period of time.  The government by forcing the allocation of credit will not only distort the market mechanism which best coordinates lending and borrowing activity in all sectors of the economy, largely to the detriment of the most creditworthy debtors, but also artificially cheapen the cost of credit for the least creditworthy of debtors by increasing the supply of available credit to them.

In effect, the government will seek to deny the truth reflected in higher interest rates for more risky borrowers by dropping their rates by fiat.  Since better credit risks will have to pay higher interest rates due to such diversion of capital, this will have a doubly negative effect on the worse credit risks who would benefit from the likely more successful economic activity of the more creditworthy borrowers.

The notion that interest rates must be kept low — that we should lie by suppressing the price of credit because it reflects truths we do not want to acknowledge is not limited to the central planning writers of the financial reform bill.

In Ben Bernanke, the chief financial central planner’s most recent performance in front of the House Budget Committee, he echoed this argument, noting that we must keep interest rates low — that we must stop the price of interest from reflecting reality or we will risk facing the consequences of reality.  This of course is how he arrives at the supposed panacea of an interest rate of 0-.25%.

We have government at every level that is bankrupt, hundreds of under-capitalized banks with toxic assets on their books and an economy that is being hyper-regulated to death and facing increasing onerous taxes direct and indirect, and yet the benchmark cost of borrowing money, to which all other interest rates are connected is 0%.  Utter insanity.  Almost as insane as giving a body like the Fed the ability to fix such a price, as if a single human being or board of human beings could pick the price of anything, be it credit or bananas.  Obama, Bernanke & Co. would rather wage a war on truth and centrally plan than go home and let prices reflect reality.

Another aspect to the denial of truth in the economy deals with the abandonment of “mark-to-market” pricing.  If banks were to have to price assets on their books based upon what they could reasonably expect to obtain in the market for those assets, many of them would be in serious trouble.  Yet instead, because we have suspended mark-to-market pricing, and forced taxpayers to pump capital into our banks, their balance sheets appear to be healthy.  Hence the new normal in our economy of “extend and pretend,” where we throw lifelines at banks and failing enterprises by providing them with cheap capital, and pray that their now hidden underlying problems will go away, knowing that they will not only not go away but grow larger until some unknown dark point in the future when the cancer kills the host.

When it comes to unemployment too, we see an administration not only denying truth but flat out lying, laughably arguing that we are creating jobs.  Leave aside the fact that the more honest measure of unemployment, U6 shows unemployment at much closer to Depression levels.  The bottom line is that a government job, the only kind we are creating, is not an economically beneficial job, the caveat being the jobs of those who defend us and keep us safe who are necessary to maintain the peace that allows our economy to function.  Even there, I doubt anyone would argue that in a world without foreign enemies, maintaining a military would be anything more than a diversion of funds.

In any event, the private sector creates jobs in response to the demand of consumers.  Sovereign individuals dictate what sectors should grow and what sectors should contract based upon their needs.  Government does not meet any such demand.  It can only take resources away from the private sector and allocate land, labor and capital based upon political, not economic factors that in a capitalist economy, individuals would make to drive economic activity.  The government in depriving individuals and enterprises of such economic resources will only stifle recovery, immorally attempting to play the role of the omnipotent master of consumers and producers.  The government will destroy jobs by “creating jobs.”

Note too that the underlying argument that people are not consuming enough, and that thus we need such boondoggles as cash-for-clunkers and HAMP further denies truth.  How is a government to know what is the proper amount of consumption?  Why is the government to stop individuals from choosing to consume less?  Why is government to take resources from people and consume more if individuals choose to consume less?

We overconsumed (as reflected in the unjustified rise and subsequent crash in asset prices) precisely because we were misled by gobs of artificially cheap credit, so now we need to force people to consume even more and make credit even cheaper?  NO!  Now we need to contract — consume less and save and invest more.  Saving and investment means foregoing consumption today to consume more tomorrow.  But if interest rates are artificially suppressed, disincentivizing saving, all we will do is perpetuate existing stagnancy.

Most recently, with regard to BP, President Obama is trying to use the disaster to argue that drilling for oil is bad, and that thus we need to use public money to push all sorts of green initiatives like windmills and solar energy.  Forget that BP was forced to drill so deep underwater because of all of the environmental regulations we have in place that prevent us from tapping much more easily usable sources of oil.  Forget that the baby-killers at BP are losing billions of dollars, again as a result of this policy, while you demonize them as if they intentionally caused this disaster.  Forget that alternative sources of energy are nowhere near being perfected, nor are they yet economical, which is why the private sector is not pushing all of its resources toward such development.

When you are the central-planner-in-chief you know better than your serfs.  You can deny all truth and continue to push your intentionally destructive policies, claiming that existing notions of individual liberty, property rights and true equality before the law are antiquated and immoral.

But in reality, President Obama’s economic policy of denying truth merely divides and favors certain classes of people over others and compounds and prolongs our problems.  Obama seeks to supplant with the decisions of divine bureaucrats the decisions of millions of individuals partaking in mutually beneficial actions to the good of the whole world.

This administration completely perverts truth, justice and morality in their grab for greater control over you and I.  Most importantly, this administration forgets the fundamental truth that man is flawed and thus cannot be G-d.  What could be more dangerous and immoral than a policy which stems from such a hubristic and fallacious principle?

In a June 14th editorial entitled “Politicizing the Fed,” the Wall Street Journal sheds light on one of the dubious regulations of the upcoming financial reform bill.  The Journal states:

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled “Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce.” Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to “establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.”

So what else is new, you say? Don’t the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit.

[...]

The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate.The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”  The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”

The law says this diversity czar will “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with “increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conducting “an assessment” of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for “affordable housing,” Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender.

In an article I wrote on February 28th entitled “Fiscal Death by Welfare,” I argued: “I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks…”  I truly wish I had been wrong in my assessment.

Note that this is not to say that minorities or women are bad credit risks, but that based upon prior social engineering experiments in which government has intervened to force lending, we have seen that the worst credit risks are the ones who most benefited at the outset, to the detriment of themselves and all taxpayers at the day of reckoning.

Too, any government forcing of credit necessarily reflects a bad credit risk, because in lieu of government intervention, market actors would already properly allocate credit to anyone, regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity, at an interest rate reflective of their risk profile.  If lenders were to discriminate on the basis of non-economic reasons, than other competitors would see this void and fill it.  This principle is reflected for example in the old days when in response to the so-called WASP investment banks, Jews built their own ones to fill the vacuum of talent being ignored by white-shoe firms.  Private self-interest works in the face of discrimination.  Public self-interest creates discrimination.

Why is forced allocation of credit to certain sectors of society harmful?  Forced allocation of credit means mispricing of credit which leads to market distortions that manifest into bubbles and crashes.

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the risk profile of the borrower.  Lenders assess the ability of a borrower to pay back a loan and determine a proper compensatory rate based upon the opportunity cost and risk involved with leaving the cash with such a borrower over a period of time.  The government by forcing the allocation of credit will not only distort the market mechanism which best coordinates lending and borrowing activity in all sectors of the economy, largely to the detriment of the most creditworthy debtors, but also artificially cheapen the cost of credit for the least creditworthy of debtors by increasing the supply of available credit to them.

In effect, the government will seek to deny the truth reflected in higher interest rates for more risky borrowers by dropping their rates by fiat.  Since better credit risks will have to pay higher interest rates due to such diversion of capital, this will have a doubly negative effect on the worse credit risks who would benefit from the likely more successful economic activity of the more creditworthy borrowers.

The notion that interest rates must be kept low — that we should lie by suppressing the price of credit because it reflects truths we do not want to acknowledge is not limited to the central planning writers of the financial reform bill.

In Ben Bernanke, the chief financial central planner’s most recent performance in front of the House Budget Committee, he echoed this argument, noting that we must keep interest rates low — that we must stop the price of interest from reflecting reality or we will risk facing the consequences of reality.  This of course is how he arrives at the supposed panacea of an interest rate of 0-.25%.

We have government at every level that is bankrupt, hundreds of under-capitalized banks with toxic assets on their books and an economy that is being hyper-regulated to death and facing increasing onerous taxes direct and indirect, and yet the benchmark cost of borrowing money, to which all other interest rates are connected is 0%.  Utter insanity.  Almost as insane as giving a body like the Fed the ability to fix such a price, as if a single human being or board of human beings could pick the price of anything, be it credit or bananas.  Obama, Bernanke & Co. would rather wage a war on truth and centrally plan than go home and let prices reflect reality.

Another aspect to the denial of truth in the economy deals with the abandonment of “mark-to-market” pricing.  If banks were to have to price assets on their books based upon what they could reasonably expect to obtain in the market for those assets, many of them would be in serious trouble.  Yet instead, because we have suspended mark-to-market pricing, and forced taxpayers to pump capital into our banks, their balance sheets appear to be healthy.  Hence the new normal in our economy of “extend and pretend,” where we throw lifelines at banks and failing enterprises by providing them with cheap capital, and pray that their now hidden underlying problems will go away, knowing that they will not only not go away but grow larger until some unknown dark point in the future when the cancer kills the host.

When it comes to unemployment too, we see an administration not only denying truth but flat out lying, laughably arguing that we are creating jobs.  Leave aside the fact that the more honest measure of unemployment, U6 shows unemployment at much closer to Depression levels.  The bottom line is that a government job, the only kind we are creating, is not an economically beneficial job, the caveat being the jobs of those who defend us and keep us safe who are necessary to maintain the peace that allows our economy to function.  Even there, I doubt anyone would argue that in a world without foreign enemies, maintaining a military would be anything more than a diversion of funds.

In any event, the private sector creates jobs in response to the demand of consumers.  Sovereign individuals dictate what sectors should grow and what sectors should contract based upon their needs.  Government does not meet any such demand.  It can only take resources away from the private sector and allocate land, labor and capital based upon political, not economic factors that in a capitalist economy, individuals would make to drive economic activity.  The government in depriving individuals and enterprises of such economic resources will only stifle recovery, immorally attempting to play the role of the omnipotent master of consumers and producers.  The government will destroy jobs by “creating jobs.”

Note too that the underlying argument that people are not consuming enough, and that thus we need such boondoggles as cash-for-clunkers and HAMP further denies truth.  How is a government to know what is the proper amount of consumption?  Why is the government to stop individuals from choosing to consume less?  Why is government to take resources from people and consume more if individuals choose to consume less?

We overconsumed (as reflected in the unjustified rise and subsequent crash in asset prices) precisely because we were misled by gobs of artificially cheap credit, so now we need to force people to consume even more and make credit even cheaper?  NO!  Now we need to contract — consume less and save and invest more.  Saving and investment means foregoing consumption today to consume more tomorrow.  But if interest rates are artificially suppressed, disincentivizing saving, all we will do is perpetuate existing stagnancy.

Most recently, with regard to BP, President Obama is trying to use the disaster to argue that drilling for oil is bad, and that thus we need to use public money to push all sorts of green initiatives like windmills and solar energy.  Forget that BP was forced to drill so deep underwater because of all of the environmental regulations we have in place that prevent us from tapping much more easily usable sources of oil.  Forget that the baby-killers at BP are losing billions of dollars, again as a result of this policy, while you demonize them as if they intentionally caused this disaster.  Forget that alternative sources of energy are nowhere near being perfected, nor are they yet economical, which is why the private sector is not pushing all of its resources toward such development.

When you are the central-planner-in-chief you know better than your serfs.  You can deny all truth and continue to push your intentionally destructive policies, claiming that existing notions of individual liberty, property rights and true equality before the law are antiquated and immoral.

But in reality, President Obama’s economic policy of denying truth merely divides and favors certain classes of people over others and compounds and prolongs our problems.  Obama seeks to supplant with the decisions of divine bureaucrats the decisions of millions of individuals partaking in mutually beneficial actions to the good of the whole world.

This administration completely perverts truth, justice and morality in their grab for greater control over you and I.  Most importantly, this administration forgets the fundamental truth that man is flawed and thus cannot be G-d.  What could be more dangerous and immoral than a policy which stems from such a hubristic and fallacious principle?

The other day President Obama gave BP an ultimatum, he met with BP executives for the first time, and squeezed $20 billion from the company.  He also made a prime-time bomb of a speech.  Moreover, in that short period, Tony Hayward has been demoted, a part-time czar has been appointed, and it is now reported that claimants are being turned away.

The success the Obama administration had in getting the oil spill live feeds off the front pages of websites and cable news stations and cause the change in the narrative from millions of gallons of oil gushing to a seemingly more proactive, authoritative, and administrative role in managing the devastating situation is remarkable.  At last, PR success.

There is, however, a major problem with all of this:  the oil is still gushing from the well and now there are large amounts of methane causing dead zones.  The “damn hole” is not plugged.

To review, BP confirmed that oil was gushing at a rate of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day, which would be equivalent to 1,470,000 to 2,520,000 (million) gallons per day (42 gallons equals 1 barrel).  Presently, the oil continues to flow, but the rate is unknown as reported by CNBC on June 11:

Under the current system, a containment cap placed atop the gushing well pipe a mile below the ocean surface is funneling some of the escaping oil and gas from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico to the surface to be collected in ships.

An undetermined amount of oil continues to escape from the cap into the ocean.

Researchers say new figures for the blown-out well show the amount of oil gushing out may have been up to twice as much as previously thought. That could mean 42 million gallons to more than 100 million gallons of oil have already fouled the Gulf’s fragile waters.

It’s seems as though so many have forgotten that the well is still leaking profusely, even though some of the oil is being captured by BP.  The MSM has adopted the Obama narrative once administration officials were able to finalize the PR maneuvers.  There are two main factors that you must remember with this administration:  they are PR masters and they will never let any crisis go to waste.

So, let’s get one thing straight:  millions of gallons of oil continue to leak into the Gulf of Mexico.  The leak has not been contained and officials cannot say for sure how many gallons continue to flow.

And what was the reason we didn’t accept the Dutch’s help within the first three days of the oil spill?  Oh yes, windmills.

After the Israeli action against the Turkish jihad flotilla aroused more international condemnation of Israel, Iran is now sending two of its own Islamic jihad flotillas – Moetillas – to Gaza. The war ship convoy (which the media affectionately has called a “humanitarian flotilla” while the “aid workers” set out to slice and dice the Jews) operated by jihad gangs from thug countries is the new way to wage war in the twenty-first century, if you’re not already busy blowing up buildings, trains, planes and other civilian targets.

The jihad flotilla. It melds propaganda together with violence, usually conducted separately, to wage war. The “aid ship” is the face of this century’s warship, like lipstick on a pig.

Of course, all of this is possible because the world media is aligned with the terror force. So when the jihadists, with the help of their leftist whores, paint up their weapon-filled warships like $2 homicidal trollops and call them “aid ships,” the media laps it up like a dog returning to its vomit.

There is no humanitarian crisis in the terror statelet of Gaza, and there is no such thing as a “Palestinian.” It was historically just a geographical designation: there were Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Muslims before ‘48. But no state. No history. No nationality distinct from that of the other Arabs in the area. No flag of this fakestinian narrative. That land is Jewish land. That history is Jewish history. That flag is the star of King David.

The only humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the lack of humanity in Gaza. They elected Hamas, whose charter specifically demands in its first paragraph the destruction of the state of Israel.

Israel asked Egypt to block these warships, a.k.a. “aid ships,” but Egypt has refused. And so now Egypt, which also shares a border with that terror statelet of Gaza, and which has, I might add, strictly enforced that border — more gravely and more violently than has Israel — is throwing in with the killers.

What happened to the peace Israel and Egypt established more the 30 years ago? Israel gave Egypt all of the Sinai, which Israel had captured from the Egyptians not once but twice, in 1956 and 1967. But at the end of the day, it always goes back to the Koran and Islamic anti-Semitism.

Egypt is the third largest recipient of US foreign aid, which it receives as a direct result of its having signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. But now Egypt feels free to do this because the world’s policeman, the United States, has walked off the beat.

Barack Obama refused to speak a word against the Islamic regime of Iran as it viciously put down the nationwide rebellion of its own people, Iranians from all walks of life, whose crime was to march for freedom in response to a corrupt and stolen election. Now I guess the Iranian mullahcracy has taken a breather from killing, raping, and imprisoning its own people, as it was missing out on all the barbaric fun the Jew-killing jihadis were having on their Islamic jihad Moetillas.

And so now Iran has gone back to its real love, the provocation of Jewish genocide as mandated by Koranic texts such as the ones that say that Jews are the Muslims’ worst enemies (5:82) and that they’re under Allah’s curse (2:89, 9:30). This Islamic anti-Semitism is the motivation of all of these Islamic countries against the tiny Jewish state.

The Muslims have always been waging war against the Jews – since the beginning of Islam, when Muhammad annihilated the Jews of Medina, the Qurayzah tribe, and then massacred the remaining Jews of Arabia at the Khaibar oasis. Why do you think the jihadis on the Turkish flotilla, the Mavi Marmara, were chanting, “Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return?” Islamic scholar Mark Durie explains:

The discriminatory shari’a regulations applying to non-Muslims, who are referred to in Islamic law as dhimmis, are based upon the precedent of Khaibar. Through a twist of history the defeat of the Jews of this little-known Arabian oasis helped determine the treatment of many millions of non-Muslims after Islamic conquest, including the once-vast Christian populations of the Middle East.

For this reason, the name of Khaibar has great significance for us all. For extremist Muslims like Amrozi, it stands for the defeat of infidel enemies, and their humiliation and subjugation under shari’a conditions, an enduring signpost to the hope of an Islamist victory.

And now, as those Iranian warships approach Gaza, they’re moving in for the kill again.

Like most people I didn’t expect a lot from the President during his oval office speech. What I got was a whole new look at the Candidate in Chief.

The first thing I noticed during the speech: I had never seen such an empty desk before., It was so clear, you could see all the dents in the desk, from where the previous presidents actually did some work.

Much has been made about how President Obama didn’t really seem comfortable in the speech, that he looked more like a visiting college student who got to sit in the big chair for a couple minutes. It could explain why his poll numbers have dropped faster than a bowling ball out a campaign bus window.

It was also only a one tele-prompter speech. Usually he has a two tele-prompter setup so his head moves back and forth, like he’s watching a beer pong game.

It was highly uncomfortable to watch. His eyes were locked on the teleprompter, and his hands never stopped moving. You weren’t even sure the guy reading, was the same guy who was moving the hands. It was almost like watching the cookie monster give an oval office address.

I look at it a different way: from a comedian’s perspective. I’ve played some fairly hostile crowds during my years on the road. But the one kind of crowd I cannot tolerate is a small one. I think most comics will agree that one of the most terrifying places you can perform is to an empty room. (Of course since I’ve become big and famous, that rarely happens to me anymore.)

Every  comic needs an audience. Those few minutes we’re on stage are the highlight of our week. It is the only time we feel alive, the only time we’re not consumed with self-doubt. Comics are narcissists. Comedy is much less a talent than a personality disorder. You wouldn’t see a lot of comics performing if there were a way that you could get self -worth out of a bottle—oh wait a minute, I think there is; and a lot of us do that as well.

The problem with the President’s speech, was that he doesn’t have any idea how to work without an audience. With no audience response, the timing of is left up to speculation. It’s why a lot of comics who destroy an audience, aren’t so good in acting the movies.  Tuesday Night, we were watching President Dane Cook.

Had you inserted the applause lines into his speech, it would have made a lot more sense. For instance, the confusing line from the speech: “…Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like.  Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there.  We know we’ll get there.”

Should have gone: “…Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. (applause)  Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there.  (applause) We know we’ll get there (big applause)

Even if we don’t know how we’ll get there? Yeah, that’s a great idea, let’s go to the Grand Canyon this summer, kids. I hope we’re driving in the right direction…” But with the applause added in, nobody would have noticed how silly it sounded.

The need for applause is not a really good quality in an administrator. It’s the difference between a strong leader and a tyrant. A leader will make rational choices, a guy working for applause is just the head of a mob. It’s one thing when that mob is just out for a good laugh and a cocktail, it’s another when they want Tony Hayward’s head on the end of a pitch fork..

And  here’s the biggest problem with performers: We also cannot stand heckling. Most hecklers will be escorted out of the room. The performers expect that.

And right now, I’m heckling big time.

While the “March Madness” that resulted in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010 would lead you to believe that STAT change was needed in our health care system, the on-going delay in the “fix” to the SGR (sustainable growth rate) formula for Medicare invokes images of a long waiting list for a rationed medical procedure.

Medicare, the federal government’s health care insurance plan for the elderly and disabled established in 1965, is largely funded from payroll taxes and FICA, and supplemented with premiums paid by its beneficiaries. It is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and is the place to look to see how our government will administer a health care system.

Since 1998, the SGR has been a component of the formula used to calculate physician payments for providing services to Medicare patients. It is based on the GDP and not on actual health care practice costs (which have been rising faster than the GDP.) The SGR produced steep cuts in physician compensation for services to Medicare patients, in hopes that by paying individual physicians less, overall health care cost would decrease.

Unfortunately, this approach has failed.

Pay to physicians caring for Medicare patients has been stagnant, while health care costs have gone up. Many physicians report receiving little net income or are barely breaking even for their care of Medicare patients. Congress has stepped in nine times since 2002 to prevent or reverse increasingly larger Medicare physician payment cuts mandated by the SGR formula. As a contingent of its support for the health care reform passed in March, the American Medical Association demanded that the flawed SGR formula be abolished.

The doctors are still waiting.

Congress had chosen to delay the cuts three times this year, but voted Thursday to allow the 21% cut in physician reimbursement to take effect now. The impact of this will be dramatic. Medicare patients & those working in the medical field are already paying the price for Congress’ inaction. An AMA poll of over 9000 doctors last month revealed that delayed Medicare payments had already caused them to postpone or cancel scheduled services to Medicare patients, while 17% of these doctors report holding up paychecks or laying off their staff – with over 1500 workers affected by this. Physicians also report limiting the numbers of Medicare patients they will see, and some have opted out of Medicare altogether.

One might consider Congress’ inability to resolve the SGR predicament as the “anti-health, anti-stimulus bill.” The cost of using the flawed SGR formula was not factored into the cost of health care reform, and it is not going away. What will go away are doctors willing to care for Medicare patients, despite the promise “if you like your doctor, you can keep him.”

The SGR problem should have been solved before comprehensive health care reform was signed into law.

From The Pilot:

A video of Rep. Bob Etheridge physically confronting a college student in Washington brought back unpleasant memories for one former Moore County resident.

Brandon Leslie, who moved away seven years ago and is now an attorney in Oxford, Miss., said he had an encounter with the now seven-term Democratic congressman from Lillington almost 14 years ago.

In the fall of 1996, when Leslie was a senior at Pinecrest High School, he said he met Etheridge at a Pinecrest football game. Etheridge – then the state superintendent of public instruction – was challenging incumbent Republican David Funderburk for his congressional seat. At the time, Moore County was part of the 2nd District, which Etheridge now represents.

Leslie said he introduced himself to Etheridge and asked him about his stance on a particular education program. He said Etheridge didn’t answer his question, so he pressed him two more times.

“And that’s when he grabbed me by the shoulders, he shook me, and I’ll never forget it, he said, ‘Son, you need to learn to respect your elders,’” he said by phone on Wednesday. “I was just so taken aback, I think my jaw just dropped, and he walked off.”

Leslie said he was angrier about Etheridge’s attitude and “patronizing” tone than the physical contact.

“It wasn’t to hurt me, it wasn’t to harm me,” he says. “It was that he was irritated and wanted to get my attention.”

Leslie said the incident caused somewhat of a firestorm at the time, and he was contacted by a few newspapers, but no stories ever appeared.

Continue reading here. In 1996, newspapers could get away with ignoring a story like this. Today, not so much.

One way or the other, one of us is going to go down. President Obama, by insisting that he will go to the mat on his “green jobs” agenda, which is simply central planning with a coat of green paint, indicates he will risk his presidency on getting the cap-and-trade, gas tax and windmill mandate through the Senate (with a stranglehold on domestic energy production to boot), then through the House again on a conferenced bill.

If he succeeds he will have doomed us; if he fails, politically the effort will have finally, fully exposed him for what he is: a Power Grabbing Statist whose economics are recklessly dogmatic while at the same time ignoring those societies he claims are his model.

Obama reminded us how as a candidate he set out what he called a set of principles, which he acknowledged were passed by the House, in a vote almost precisely one year ago today.

Here is what he said then about cap-and-trade, which the House passed. This discussion occurred in the apparent context of how to mount his and his team’s big-ticket agenda items:

“The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, and force their representatives to do the right thing. That requires mobilizing a citizenry…And climate change is a great example.”

You got it: this is the community organizer, refusing to allow a crisis to go to waste, but instead seeking to use it to do what he’s trying to do.

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants, you know, natural ga — you name, it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was — they will have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that money [sic] on to the consumer.”

That’s right. It’s a staggeringly large tax, which he acknowledged will be borne by consumers. This reflects two signs of economic literacy: the purpose and operation of cap-and-trade, and that businesses pass taxes on to consumers. Until they can’t, of course, then they move.

Oh, speaking of this being a tax, he added:

“This will also raise billions of dollars”.

Please note, that is not “some costs”. That is what Al Gore called a “wrenching transformation of society”.

First, a note about the lack of intellectual honesty in claiming that it was a lack of candor and political courage — both of which he was implicitly manifesting — that have left us relying on the most abundant reliable energy sources man has ever known. No. Physics and economics dictate from where we derive our energy. Not a lack of statism.

Further, we are not as he said running out of oil onshore, and in shallow water. We have generations of oil in oil shale and other “unconventional oil” sources, right beneath our soil. That he has to pretend we do not, and that he is not blocking it, tells you quite a bit of what you need to know about the sincerity of this seizure of a crisis to ensure it does not go to waste.

Which raises his claim that adopting his cap-and-trade statism will “grow the economy.” Absurd.

Consider the following excerpt from Chapter 6, “Green Eggs and Scam: The Wholesale Fraud of ‘Green Jobs’” from How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America: (citations are omitted)

CAN MAKE-WORK “GROW THE ECONOMY”?

Sadly, however, such impacts, whether “opportunity” costs or otherwise, are not pressing considerations in Washington. No, we are now told that by mandating that the American economy be driven by all manner of energy sources that cannot stand on their own, we will “grow the economy.” That is the new, favorite phrase of my young Democratic congressman, Tom Periello. Mr. Periello, like a host of lawmakers desperate to find cover for their 2009 vote in support of the disastrous Waxman-Markey “cap-and-trade” bill, has since dedicated countless hours on the House floor and elsewhere to spread this tawdry exposition of economic illiteracy to those masses he and his colleagues hope are desperate or inattentive enough to fall for it….

Sadly, the best case scenario for this claim would be that it is made out of disgraceful ignorance. …

The truth is that even inherently biased administration studies of the “green job” scheme cap-and-trade, by EPA, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and the Congressional Budget Office, as well as the independent Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Council for Capital Formation, and CRA International, agree that these cap-and-trade bills must reduce overall employment and lead to lower incomes than can be had without them. EIA, for example, said that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill destroys 2.3 million jobs on net when fully implemented (in 2030), 800,000 of them manufacturing jobs. Not one cap-and-trade scenario modeled by any of these entities produced net job or income growth from cap-and-trade.

Reckless and disingenuous though the claim is, agenda-driven whizzes in Washington insist that throwing away a billion dollars, confiscated from today’s and future generations, grows the economy—simply because they see a giant hamster wheel research facility go up in their district. But the claim that this will “grow the economy” is made up. These actions will do the opposite.

The government can give us nothing that it has not taken from us. The politics of envy, which underlies much of the “green jobs” hooey, have never been as strong in the United States as in Europe—and that fact gave us a chance for longer than the Europeans to stand firm against all of the promises of free ice cream. Now we are told to look to Europe, but ignore the actual lessons. Instead, accept a fairy tale.

Our German experts [at old-line and state-funded think tank RWI-Essen] summarized for us:

“German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.”

I then discuss the doggerel, repeated by Obama, of Green Jobs in Red China, briefly excerpted here:

“What might be the most embarrassing aspect to this con is that the same policies supposedly ensuring that particular, politically desired goods will be produced here, because their use is mandated here, actually ensure they’ll be made somewhere else….

The lede in a November 5, 2009, Boston Globe story captured the situation well: “Little more than a year after cutting the ribbon at a new factory in Devens built with more than $58 million in state aid, Evergreen Solar said yesterday that it will shift its assembly of solar panels from there to China.” Ouch. It seems that “In exchange for receiving $58.6million in grants, loans, land, tax incentives, and other aid to build in Massachusetts, Evergreen pledged that it would add

350 new jobs,” which it did. Briefly, only to then “write off $40 million worth of equipment at Devens because of the production shift to China.” The company cited the cost of production here not faced if they build their machines elsewhere. No one told them it wasn’t polite to prove the president wrong, and send green jobs overseas, to make things for use back home in response to mandates making it more expensive to produce here, prompting others to move overseas.

Boy, Obamanomics can be exhausting.”

Tonight’s display, on substance, was sophomoric or uninformed. Politically, it was standard cynical fare.

It is difficult to be amazed by a politician but Obama’s rhetoric Tuesday night in fact betrayed a gobsmacking level of cynicism or ignorance: rationing is not a prescription for growth; the state cannot mandate defeat of the laws of physics. China is installing windmills because Western countries pay them to under Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism, simply because those nations get emission “reduction” crisis for doing so which they need as they’ve discovered they can’t actually reduce emissions without economic crisis driving it (like today) or resulting from it (like in Spain, cited by Obama as his model eight times). And China will stop building windmills the minute we abandon this fetish.

The Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study arguing that immigration has had negative effects on California. One of their measures was a comparison of how many people in the state were receiving some form of welfare compared to other states. I found that data (see Table 3 of the report) very interesting, but not because of the immigration debate (I’ll leave others to debate that topic). Instead, I wanted to get a better understanding of the variations in government dependency. Is there a greater willingness to sign up for income redistribution programs, all other things being equal, from one state to another? The “all other things being equal” caveat is very important, of course, since the comparison produced by CIS may simply be an indirect measure of the factors that determine welfare eligibility. One obvious (albeit crude) way of addressing this problem is to subtract each state’s poverty rate to get a measure of how many non-poor people are signed up for income-redistribution programs. Let’s call this the Moocher Index.

A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.

Let’s now emphasize several caveats.

I’m not an expert on the mechanics of social welfare programs, but even I know that eligibility is not governed solely by the poverty rate. Indeed, some welfare programs are open to people with much higher levels of income. This means that a more thorough analysis at the very least would have to include some measure of income distribution by state. Moreover, states use different formulas for Medicaid eligibility, so this index ideally also would be adjusted for state-specific policies that make it easier or harder for people to become dependent. There also are some states (and even colleges) that actually try to lure people into signing up for welfare, which also might affect the results. And I’m sure there are many other factors that are important, including perhaps immigration. If anybody knows of most substantive research in this area, please don’t hesitate to share material.

For far too long, Americans have watched as the Democrat Majority in Washington has made promise after promise that they would responsibly manage the taxpayer’s dollars – but one promise we haven’t seen many members keep is to take action to reduce our ever exploding deficit by actually cutting wasteful spending.

Many Americans have lost their jobs or have seen their pay and benefits reduced. Our nation’s families and small business job providers are all tightening their belts – all while they look at what’s happening in Washington in disbelief.

Spending is out-of-control. We have a national debt over $13 trillion; an annual budget deficit of nearly $1.6 trillion; and within the first eight months of our current fiscal year, the federal government has accumulated $935 billion in deficit spending. Currently, we are right on track to meet last year’s annual deficit record of $1.4 trillion. American taxpayers want spending reduced.

That is why Republican Whip Eric Cantor and the House Republicans have launched the YouCut project – where we go over the heads of Nancy Pelosi and her allies in Congress to engage the American people in the effort to reduce the deficit and cut wasteful spending now.

YouCut gives Americans the opportunity to vote each week for one of five wasteful spending programs and Republicans will force a vote on the one receiving the most votes. As of this week, Americans have casted over 850,000 votes on YouCut programs.

So far, Americans have asked House Republicans to push for a vote on a proposal to sell excess federal property, saving taxpayers up to $15 billion; a vote to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would generate over $30 billion in savings for taxpayers; a vote on a spending cut to eliminate the proposed federal employee pay raise that would have saved hard pressed American families $2 billion this year and nearly $30 billion over 10 years; and a spending cut that would have saved $2.5 billion a year and not undue reforms that will weaken our welfare program.

We can all agree that this is not too much to ask for our government to stop spending money that we do not have, while families across the nation are facing many financial challenges.

Since we started this effort the Democrat Majority has voted down each attempt to reduce spending, but we are forcing change. Democrat leaders in Congress are now scrambling to try and find cuts that they can support. If we force cuts, YouCut will have been a great success. But the Democrats will never cut spending if we don’t keep up the pressure.

I encourage every American citizen to go to the YouCut website and make your voice heard in Congress and help get some fiscal sanity back in Washington today.

We must focus on what we can do to cut spending today, because every day we wait billions of dollars in new debt are passed along to our children and grandchildren. YouCut gives the American people a chance to say enough is enough.

In politics, temperament matters – it matters a great deal, as Barack Obama has unwittingly shown us time and again.

Some women and men love to posture, talk, debate, and negotiate. Temperamentally, they are suited for a legislative role. It is said – only partly in jest– that, in Washington, DC, the most dangerous space to occupy is that which lies between a United States Senator and a microphone.

Other women and men – think of Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, and Ronald Reagan – were born to take charge. When Harry Truman put a sign on his desk, reading, “The buck stops here,” he knew what he was talking about. As Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist, it is vital that we have in our Constitution a unitary executive because, in human affairs, emergencies are commonplace; secrecy, vigor, and dispatch are often requisite; and, in such circumstances, there has to be someone in high office able, willing, and even eager to take responsibility for the conduct of affairs.

Americans have an instinctive understanding of what is at stake. Ordinarily, they choose as Presidents men with executive experience – men with a track record in directing affairs that can be judged. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower had been prominent generals before they were elected Presidents, and Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Theodore Roosevelt had also demonstrated an aptitude for leadership in war.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, the younger Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush had held the vice-presidency. Jefferson and Van Buren had also been Secretary of State, and the same can be said for James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and James Buchanan. Monroe had also been Secretary of War, and this was true was well for William Howard Taft. Herbert Hoover had managed relief efforts in Europe early in and after World War I; he had served as Food Administrator within the United States after we entered that war; and, from 1921 to 1928, he served as Secretary of Commerce.

Many of the others elected to the presidency had previously held gubernatorial office.

This was true for Jefferson, Monroe, Van Buren, the younger Roosevelt, and, if one counts his service as governor of the Philippines, for Taft as well. It applies also to James K. Polk, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, William Jefferson Clinton, and George H. Bush.

The only men ever elected to the presidency who had no executive experience of any sort were Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and the hapless incumbent we have today.

No one – not even, in retrospect, his own political party – thought that Pierce did a decent job. It was during his administration (1853-1857) that the Union began to come apart. Harding is best remembered for the scandals that beset his short-lived administration (1921-1923). And although, thanks to the slavish devotion of his acolytes in the media and in the academy, JFK is in some circles revered, his actual performance in office prior to October, 1962 was deplorable. As Donald Kagan pointed out on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the construction of the Berlin Wall Kennedy was so weak, so irresolute and indecisive, so feckless in his dealings with the Soviet Union that his conduct encouraged Nikita Khrushchev to think that he could get away with introducing missiles tipped with nuclear warheads into Castro’s Cuba and brought us thereby to the brink of nuclear war.

Executive experience does not guarantee wisdom and competence in office. Pierce, Harding, and Kennedy were by no means the only elected Presidents to fall short. But, as the American people generally appreciate, the lack of executive experience is a good indicator of fecklessness to come.

Witness Barack Obama. Leave aside his first year in office. As I pointed out in posts entitled “Barack Obama and the Exhausted Presidency” and “Obama’s First Year,” from the outset, he conducted himself in an irresponsible fashion that is highly unpresidential.

He forgot that, in the larger world, the President represents his country. Out of personal pique, he persistently insulted our friends abroad, displaying disdain for Gordon Brown, stiffing Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, treating Benyamin Netanyahu with open contempt, and turning his back on the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Iran. At the same time, he embraced Hugo Chavez, sucked up to Vladimir Putin, and kowtowed to the rulers of Saudi Arabia and China – all to no avail.

With regard to domestic affairs, he seems not to have recognized that, under our Constitution, it is the President of the United States who represents the national interest; that Congressmen more often than not cater to particular interests; that, if legislation is left to the latter, principle tends to give way to patronage; and that the result can be a profound embarrassment. And so he stood idly by while Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the like drafted legislation – a so-called “stimulus bill” and healthcare reform, each more than a thousand pages in length, each embodying a multitude of corrupt bargains, each threatening to bankrupt the country. And, like a political hack, faithful to his party to the bitter end, he promoted and signed their handiwork.

All of this was obvious long ago, and it was evident as well that, if there were a real crisis, he would check out. This is what he did when Major Nidal Malik Hassan gunned down thirteen Americans at Fort Hood. This is what he did when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly brought down a jetliner at Christmas time. And this is what he did when Faisal Shahzad was found to have planted a bomb in Times Square. All three cases revealed an egregious failure of our intelligence apparatus. In all three cases, the danger had its source in developments within Islam And, in the face of all of this, the President of the United States signaled that he could hardly bear to take a few minutes off from his vacation at the beach in Hawaii, cancel a party or two, or give up his golf game to acknowledge and address the failures of his administration, and at no time has he been willing to level with us about the source of our peril.

Maureen Dowd and those who think that politics is about play-acting – here is her latest column on this theme – lament that, like Spock in Star Trek, No-Drama Obama is simply incapable of displaying any sense of urgency. The real problem is much more serious, for our well-being is to a considerable degree in this man’s hands, and, when things go wrong, he seems not to feel any sense of urgency at all.

The oil spill that began in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April is the latest example. Some say that President Obama is no more responsible for the spill than President Bush was for Hurricane Katrina. This claim is, in fact, untrue. Bush had nothing to do with Katrina. Barack Obama, as President, was responsible for insuring that the regulatory agencies overseeing the drilling operations did their job properly. While campaigning for the presidency, he charged that the Bush administration had, in effect, allowed the oil industry to regulate itself, and he promised that, if he were elected, he would set things right. During that campaign, he took a wad of cash from folks at BP (more than they had ever given any other candidate); and, when the time came to reform the Minerals Management Service, as Tim Dickinson has shown in fine detail in the latest issue of Rolling Stone, the new administration’s appointees did nothing of the sort.

Nor was the Obama administration quick off the mark in doing what could be done to contain the spill. Instead, while the govenors in the Gulf states clamored for action, the President played golf and partied and the bureaucracy dithered, delaying by weeks efforts to prevent the oil from coming ashore, from fouling beaches, and killing wildlife. Nearly two months have passed since the accident on the Deepwater Horizon, and to date President Obama has issued no waiver to the Jones Act, which stands in the way of foreign ships with foreign crews helping to contain and suck up the spill.

The environmentalists are reportedly giving the Obama adminstration a pass. By now, they are reliable partisans, and they have their eye on cap-and-trade. The people of Louisiana are much less happy. They recognize the deepwater drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration for what it is – a ploy designed to persuade those not in the know that something decisive is being done – and, according to the left-liberal outfit Public Policy Polling, more than three-quarters of the voters in that state still favor offshore drilling. Moreover, half of the voters polled “think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama’s done dealing with the spill,” 31% of self-described Democrats agree, and only 35% of those polled give Obama higher marks.

Only one politician has gained ground in the course of this crisis, and that is Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. The poll recently taken shows that “63% of voters approve of the job he’s doing,” which is the highest approval rating that Public Policy Polling “has found for any Senator or Governor so far in 2010. There’s an even higher level of support, at 65%, for how he’s handled the aftermath of the spill.” Jindal is evidently a man of executive temperament. He is not better placed to deal with the spill than is Barack Obama, but he has done as much to keep it off the beaches and out of the swamplands of southern Louisiana as lay within his power.

As the reports make abundantly clear, Barack Obama did not help himself at all with the speech he gave on Monday night from the Oval Office. As our President plays golf, parties, and pauses from time to time to bloviate and pose for photo-ops, his popularity steadily sinks under the weight of his evident indifference to our security and well-being.

It is high time that Republicans start asking the obvious question: who, in their number, is best prepared to do what this presidential incumbent has no desire to bother with: to take what the authors of The Federalist called responsibility. Governor Jindal may not be at the very top of the list of possible presidential contenders, but he is certainly high on it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano took the helm of the Glenn Beck Show and made a strong case against the Obama Administration’s handling of the oil disaster in the gulf. The Judge detailed how an incompetent government coupled with the crony capitalism of special interests laid the foundation for the current tragedy. Big Government’s Mike Flynn and the awesome pollster Pat Caddell joined in for the discussion.

CNN is planning to bring disgraced former New York governor on as a commentator to replace the leaving Campbell Brown- thus condoning the criminal actions of Eliot Spitzer which he has never admitted or atoned for after using his influence to avoid prosecution.

WHY WOULD CNN TRUST SUCH A MAN ?

Should CNN now be called the Criminal News Network ? Eliot Spitzer violated federal money laundering laws as well as the Mann Act, which prohibits transporting a woman across state lines for the purposes of prostitution, which a Republican New York State Supreme Court Justice was charged, convicted and jailed for in 2009. Why not Spitzer?

WHY WOULD CNN CONDONE THIS BEHAVIOR?

Eliot Spitzer also violated Federal Money Laundering laws which were reported by two New York banks (North Fork Bank and HSBC) with the U.S. Treasury department and the Internal Revenue Service after Spitzer moved large sums of cash in bank accounts he controlled. The banks reported the transactions because they looked like “structuring” transactions. A structured transaction, according to the FFIEC’s Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) exam manual, is used to evade BSA reporting and certain recordkeeping requirements. They are used to hide the source, destination or reason the money is being sent. Spitzer broke the law.

WHY WOULD CNN GIVE A FORUM TO SUCH A MAN ?

Prior to his arrest, Spitzer was being investigated for his role in the Troopergate scandal where he directed his aides to use dirty STATE POLICE to spy on a political opponent. Emails acknowledging Spitzer’s direction and knowledge of these acts came out after his resignation. Use of state resources for political purposes is a crime and a felony.

WHY WOULD CNN RISK THEIR CREDIBILITY WITH A MAN LIKE THIS?

There is also the issue of how he financed his failed 1994 race for attorney general and his successful one in 1998. In both races for Attorney General he took over $9M in illegal loans from his father to finance his campaign and lied about it to the New York Times. Campaign laws prohibit Spitzer, the son of a multi-millionaire, unlimited use of his father’s money for campaign funds. In order to finance his campaigns, he entered into a series of shady loans with the ultimate source being his father. After being uncovered by various media outlets, Spitzer finally admitted to breaking Campaign Finance Laws stating “he had to do it”.

WHY WOULD CNN PROMOTE HYPOCRISY?

As Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer prosecuted people for promoting prostitution. Spitzer on June 6, 2007 signed into law legislation to prevent human trafficking and to suppress the demand for prostitution. New York’s punishment for patronizing prostitutes changed from a Class B misdemeanor (3 months jail/$500 fine) to a Class A (1 year jail/$1,000 fine) misdemeanor. All the while Eliot Spitzer was frequenting these same agencies. Spitzer has yet to admit to his hypocrisy.

CNN BETTER WATCH THEIR RATINGS

Yes, everyone deserves a second chance. However, how can you give someone a second chance when they haven’t asked for forgiveness? They haven’t admitted the entirety of what they have done but rather tried to downplay their actions in hope that we would eventually forget. There has been no apology or admission to the taxpayers he betrayed. The idea of Eliot Spitzer having any moral authority or any credibly regarding law- breaking on Wall street given his own record of disregard for the law is a joke.

Citizens who oppose glorifying Eliot Spitzer with a CNN Cable TV show should go here to register their complaint and send an e-mail message to CNN executives- Just say No to Spitzer.

#

KRISTIN DAVIS supplied escorts for Eliot Spitzer when he was both Attorney General and Governor of New York for which she served four months in prison and six years probation. A political and women’s rights activist, Davis is running for Governor of New York as a Libertarian.

Democrat Representative Bob Etheridge was recently asked if he fully supports the Obama agenda, provoking an angry and violent response from the Congressman.

We had no idea that this was such a provocative question – and we wanted to find out why it’s such a dangerous line of inquiry.  So at great risk to our own personal safety, we took our cameras to the underground walkways of Chicago, the epicenter of Obamamania, to see if the question was just as dangerous to ask here as it is in D.C.  What we discovered will shock you.  Viewer discretion is advised.

“Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans.” “Draft health rules set hurdles.” “Employer health care costs to jump 9% in 2011.” With headlines like these splashed across the nation’s newspapers, it’s no wonder the American public remains steadfastly opposed to the government takeover of health care signed into law by President Obama in March. Just this week, the Obama administration released bureaucratic new health care regulations that could change or eliminate more than half of all employer-provided health care plans, affecting tens of millions of Americans. Apparently, “If you like it, you can keep it” was an Obama promise too good to be true – one of many, as it is turning out.

Indeed, ObamaCare’s broken promises are piling up for America’s families, seniors, and job-creators and stifling the economic recovery we all hope to achieve. Bureaucratic mandates, higher taxes, and record deficit spending are proven job killers – yet these very principles lay at the heart of the Democrats’ government takeover of health care.

During the Blair House summit, Speaker Pelosi decreed the Democrats’ health care plan would “create four million jobs — 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” With a national unemployment rate stuck near 10 percent, and with 15 million Americans searching for work, Republicans and the American people continue to ask: Where are the jobs?

One of the lasting lessons of the health care debate is this: The American people will no longer accept a federal government that is tone-deaf to their concerns. Men and women who never before have spoken out about politics are now standing up and demanding to be heard. And Republicans are using every resource and seizing every opportunity to bring their voices to Washington D.C.

A central part of our effort is America Speaking Out, a bold new initiative designed to give the American people a voice in shaping a new governing agenda for Congress and the nation. Through AmericaSpeakingOut.com, Americans can post policy suggestions and vote or offer comments on the ideas shared by lawmakers and fellow citizens. It is truly an unprecedented dialogue between the people and their elected leaders.

In the weeks since it launched, ASO has been a powerful force on the internet and in town hall meetings in congressional districts from coast to coast. Tomorrow, the ingenuity of ASO comes to the halls of Congress thanks to the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group. For more than a year, House Republicans have studied the nation’s health care challenges and offered commonsense solutions to lower health care costs and protect jobs without growing the size of government.

Tomorrow’s forum will be the second in a series of meetings intended to shine a brighter light on the consequences of ObamaCare for America’s families and job creators. We have invited experts and individuals with real-world experience to discuss the chilling effect a government takeover of health care is having on job creators across the country. Already we know ObamaCare will penalize small businesses for raising wages or creating new jobs, and we know it will hit businesses – both large and small – with an estimated $87 billion in new penalties for failing to provide government-approved health care. The American people deserve to have these facts examined and they deserve an opportunity to chart a different course, one they support.

At America Speaking Out, citizens have a national platform to offer their ideas for reigning in government spending and advancing American prosperity. Chief to achieving those goals is the desire to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reform the country can afford. Tomorrow’s health care forum will allow members of Congress and outside experts to discuss ideas posted to America Speaking Out, as well as suggest new ideas for the public to consider.

In his farewell from the Oval Office, President Reagan noted that while as a great nation our challenges seem complex, “as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours.” Limited government, personal responsibility, and economic freedom will once again lead this nation to opportunity and prosperity. Democrats disregarded these basic principles in their pursuit of government-run health care. The consequences have proven devastating.

The American people realize the path to renewing our economic prosperity comes through courage and sacrifice, and they are demanding a renewed commitment to our oldest and most basic principles. The American people are speaking out, and Republicans are listening.

Putting aside for a second the fact that this speech was given about 50 days late, last night’s oval office speech proved that the President is not ready to be honest with the American people.  For the first 30 days of this crisis, President Obama was ignoring the fact that the crisis existed, and now when he uses the oval office to give the people confidence that he is on top of the problem  he spends more time trying to sell cap and trade than discussing capping the well. Essentially, he is still ignoring the crisis.

Lets take a look at the key points of the President’s speech. He begins by trying to convince America that he has been doing a great job at managing the disaster:

“… I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.”

Nobel prizes have not been impressive since  Obama recived one for doing nothing and Al Gore got one for a hoax.  The key is how the ideas from those great minds are implemented. The President’s management of the crisis has been horrible.  Even the progressive bible  the NY Times trashed Obama’s  management of the crisis:

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

In other words,  the leadership and management coming from the executive branch of the government has been a disaster.

“Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we are working with Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.”

A little truth Mr. President?  Only after Bobby Jindal said he was going to build the barrier islands whether they were approved or not, was the barrier island  plan approved.

The  President might have come clean and told us  why the United States refused to accept skimmers from the Dutch, or help from any other country. Maybe he could have explained  why miles of oil boom remain in a Maine warehouse despite the fact that the administration was informed of the supply the third week of May.

“… 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. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.”

While most people would agree that  BP should be paying  for the damage it caused, (BP has promised that it will),  there is no place in the constitution saying that the President has the power to demand a company set aside money in an escrow account? Nor is there a place saying  the POTUS can demand that the account be administered by a third party.  To be honest that clause could be hiding  right next to the clause saying  the government can force citizens to purchase health insurance.

The  demand for BP to freeze money in an escrow account shows a lack of understanding of capitalism. Not allowing BP to spend those dollars on growing its business is limiting the company’s ability to generate the profits  necessary to pay its obligation to the victims of the disaster.

“… Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue.”

The drilling freeze is like closing down GM the first time one of its cars is involved in an accident.  Wood Mackenzie Research and Consulting published a report saying the six month moratorium will result in job losses of over 120,000 by 2014. The gulf region is already suffering, as is the American economy, the embargo does nothing but make it worse.

“One place we have already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility – a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it’s now clear that the problems there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow.”

The problem was much worse than the President described.  The Minerals Management Service scandal  broke in September 2008. This crisis did not happen at the beginning of Obama’s administration but  there was a sixteen month window between the inauguration and the oil spill. This was Obama’s problem not Bush’s.

... a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

Mr President you are lying. A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) dated October 2009 proves Obama is lying. The report shows the  amount of  recoverable oil in the U.S. to be 167 billion barrels of oil, not the 21 billion figure pushed by the Democrats.  If exploited that 167 billion barrels could replace America’s  imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years.

That same report shows that America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal supply is the largest on Earth. America’s recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. Those estimates don’t include America’s  immense oil shale deposits.

“The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.”

That’s true. China is investing in clean energy, at the same time they are exploiting every possible opportunity to exploit their own resources.  The United States is funding part of their green job investment with the interest payments from the money that China is loaning us.

If the President and his progressive allies allowed the U.S. to exploit our own resources, there would be no need to  spend that $1 billion on foreign oil.

“...The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.”

Here is the  truth about alternate energy Obama forgets to mention. With the exception of  nuclear energy, no alternate energy has been developed that can run this nation as effectively or efficiently as fossil fuels. Nothing even in the same neighborhood. If the economy is “switched over” before a legitimate alternative is developed, the catastrophically higher prices will collapse the economy.

The President is a recent convert to nuclear power, but not a serious one. He has not allowed the approval process to be streamlined, or a way around the objections of his environmental buddies. So even the one real alternative energy cannot be exploited quickly.

“…Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.”

The bill passed by the House represents the largest tax increase in American history. It also uses  government regulation  essentially  take over every industry that uses fossil fuel (wait, every industry uses fossil fuel).

More than Obamacare, cap and trade represents a takeover of the American economy, that will retard economic growth, and push the already bankrupt federal budget over the edge.

“Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.”

And some just want to know where the government is going to get the money? It looks like China will get more US interest payments so they can invest in green energy.

“The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon.”

Holy Cow, what an original thought!. “If we can land a man on the moon, why cant we find green energy?” Maybe I can use that line for a future post. I will  have to remember that one.  As I will remember the President’s entire speech.  Who knew that one Obama could fit so much bull into just eighteen minutes. The President may get a slight bump from this, but within a week, the stench of the rotting Presidential bull will drive Americans away from the lies he told tonight.

The parallels to 1994 are all around us.  A Democrat president is elected.  He pushes big government agenda items like health care.  His presidency gets mired by scandal and circumstances.  His poll numbers begin to drop quickly.   In 1994 Republicans rallied around a set of principles and won a congressional majority.  Today, unfortunately, those principles often appear to be missing.

The Contract with America was a critical piece of the Republican victory in 1994 because it let voters know there was an alternative to the big spending ways of the Democrat Party.  Today, not so much.

Republicans appear to be all over the map and the clear principled default lines are missing.

Nowhere does that appear more evident than on the Financial Reform legislation.  The bill passed the Senate after the Democrats broke the Republican dam.  Sen. Scott Brown joined others in moving the bill to a House Senate Conference where things are going from bad to worse.  Republicans didn’t help make the bill “better” by voting for amendment’s like the Durbin price control amendment.

The time has come to for Republicans to begin to draft distinctions between Democrats and their big government policies.  The Financial Reform legislation is a good place to start.  The bill contains bailouts, takeovers, and price control schemes — via the Durbin Amendment — that is corporate welfare at it’s worse.

Should BP have it’s profit padded by an act of corporate welfare by Congress? Should the marketplace or government set the price of credit card transactions? Does anyone honestly believe that the government can set price controls and not have a negative impact on consumers?  These questions are easy to answer for principled conservatives.  Apparently they are not so easy to answer for some Republicans in the House and Senate that are trying to “help their friends.”  We need principled leaders who can clearly and effectively communicate a vision defending free markets.

Republicans are seeking to become the majority party in Congress this November.  But grass roots conservatives continue to demand leaders who can clearly annunciate the principles of limited government and the free market. They are not looking for Republicans to be “less bad” than the Democrats.  They need leaders willing to stand up to special interests looking for a leg up against their competitors — even if they are financial contributors.

Republicans standing up for free markets will feel immense pressure to “support their friends.”  Lobbyists pushing for price controls to pad the bottom line of their corporate interests are telling their benefactors that Members of Congress who oppose the Durbin price control scheme are  ”flipping the bird” to certain industries.

In an email to his membership, the head of NACS — the lobbying arm for retailers and petroleulm markets — objecting to a letter circulating throughout the House of Representatives objecting to the Durbin Amendment wrote corporate executives:

From: Lyle Beckwith

TO:                        State Convenience and Petroleum Retailing Association Executives

FROM:                  Lyle Beckwith

DATE:                  June 11, 2010

SUBJ:                    Interchange Enemies List

The attached letter should OUTRAGE you!!!!  The Members of Congress who are signing it should OUTRAGE YOU MORE!!!  Please see who is flipping the bird to our membership and let them know what you think!!!!!  DO IT TODAY to give them a chance to get OFF the letter!!!

The Durbin amendment is bad policy.  It is government picking sides in the marketplace to pad the bottom line of one industry over another.  That is not what the free market is about.  Members who support price controls to help companies are also “flipping the bird” — to freedom and free markets.

The Republicans’ defining moment is rapidly approaching. Will they stand with their price fixing lobbyist friends or will they stand with consumers? If Republicans are unable to stand unified in opposition to something as plainly and incredibly out of line with their party’s principles as government price controls,   then how can voters ever trust them with the majority?

So, the Republicans’ fates are in their own hands. The only question is, are they up to the task?

So President Obama is meeting in the White House tomorrow with BP’s chairman. The focus of public discussion of this event has been on it taking until the 57th day or so since the Deepwater Horizon rig caught fire following a well explosion, precipitating the ongoing oil leak.

The more relevant figure is 4,700. If my quick calculation has it right, that’s the number of days since the last time a BP CEO was in the Oval Office.

On that day, August 4, 1997, then-CEO, (then-Sir) John Browne, joined by Ken Lay, met in the Oval with President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

Their mission that day? As revealed in the August 1, 1997 Lay briefing memo whiih I was later provided — having left a brief dance with Enron after raising questions about this very issue — it was to demand that the White House ignore unanimous Senate instruction pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution (”advice”, of “advice and consent” fame), and to go to Kyoto and agree to the “global warming” treaty.

Oh, and to enact a cap-and-trade scheme.

Oddly, President Obama tonite will telegraph that he’s really going to stick it to BP tomorrow and give ‘em…the cap-and-trade scheme they concocted with Enron (spare me the hysterics, comrades, as I have detailed and explained in various ways here, here and here, I was in the room).

That is, Congress willing. Possibly you can let your thoughts on the matter, on not letting this crisis go to waste, be known as well?

Even though the Obama Administration claimed that squandering $800 billion on so-called stimulus would  keep the joblessness rate below 8 percent, the unemployment rate today is almost 10 percent. There are many reasons for the economy’s tepid performance, including a larger burden of government spending and the dampening effect of future tax rate increases (tax rates will jump significantly on January 1, 2011, when the 2003 tax cuts expire).

A closer look at the unemployment data, though , suggests that minimum wage laws also deserve a big share of the blame. In this Center for Freedom and Prosperity video, a former intern of mine at the Cato Institute (continuing a great tradition) explains that politicians destroyed jobs when they increased the minimum wage by more than 40 percent over a three-year period.

Mr. Divounguy is correct when he says businesses are not charities and that they only create jobs when they think a worker will generate net revenue. Higher minimum wages, needless to say, are especially destructive for people with poor work skills and limited work experience. This is why young people and minorities tend to suffer most – which is exactly what we see in the government data, with the teenage unemployment rates now at an astounding (and depressing) 26 percent level and blacks suffering from a joblessness rate of more than 15 percent.

Since the video is focused on economics, it does not examine why politicians would enact legislation that destroys jobs.

There are probably several factors involved, including economic ignorance, but a key factor is that politicians are responding to pressure from unions. This raises a separate question. Union members invariably make more than the minimum wage, so why do union bosses put so much muscle behind lobbying campaigns for higher minimum wages? The answer is simple. As Walter Williams has explained, unions want to make it more expensive for employers to hire other forms of labor. For all intents and purposes, the union bosses are throwing the less fortunate and more vulnerable members of society under the bus.

In a free society, there should be no minimum wage law. From a philosophical perspective, such requirements interfere with the freedom of contract. In the imperfect world of politics, thought, the best we can hope for is that politicians occasionally do the right thing. Sadly, the recent minimum wage increases that have done so much damage were signed into law by President Bush. It’s worth noting that President Obama’s hands also are dirty on this issue, since he supported the job-killing measure when it passed the Senate in 2007. When the stupid party and the evil party both agree on a certain policy, that’s known as bipartisanship. In the real world, however, it’s called unemployment.

The next time someone asks you to explain “the politics of personal destruction,” use this example: Video surfaces of a United States Congressman attacking a college student, grabbing him by the wrist, neck, and body, and assaulting another student’s camera.  The U.S. Representative refuses to immediately release the first student despite the student’s repeated pleas.  You are an official of that Congressman’s political party.  How do you respond?  You attack the publisher of a website that released the video.  Behold, from Politico’s Ben Smith:

A national Democratic Party official e-mailed around a set of talking points about an hour ago, under the subject heading, “Etheridge Gotcha Video Background.”

Democrats are seeking to raise questions about the video, which first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, because of what’s widely viewed as the media’s mishandling of the ACORN story, which emerged without context from edited videos. In particular, party officials say the video was likely taken by a tracker for the Republican Party, which would explain the effort taken to conceal his identity.

From the talking points:

Push hard w/ blogs the lack of credibility inherent to anything Breitbart does/posts, given its role in the debunked ACORN videos:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html?src=twrhttp://mediamatters.org/research/201006010001

http://gawker.com/5508190/okeefe-and-breitbart-acorn-videos-severely-edited

Considering Congressman Etheridge has already apologized and said there was no excuse for his behavior, it’s seems like this may have been a battle the Democrats should have sat out.  Too late now.

From New Jersey’s Daily Record:

The Obama Administration handed out more than $400 million in awards to federal employees last year, up by more than $80 million from the prior year, according to new government data.

The biggest winners were air traffic controllers and top managers in Washington, a review of fiscal year 2009 salary reports from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management showed.

OPM’s data, obtained by the Asbury Park Press through a freedom of information request, account for 1.3 million employees, or about 65 percent of the federal civilian work force.

The $408 million given in awards excludes the departments of Defense and Treasury, security agencies such as the CIA and FBI, the White House, Congress and various independent commissions and agencies, such as the U.S. Postal Service.

The defense department paid $92.1 million in awards in 2008, the latest year available. Awards were given to 100,000 of its 687,000 employees.

Continue reading here.

When one watches Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) pushing a camera, grabbing a college student by the arm, collaring him around the neck, and finally hugging him to his body in order to threaten him for information about his identity, one thing becomes absolutely clear: this guy is a moron.

Well, something else also becomes clear: Etheridge is guilty of criminal assault under Washington D.C. law. DC Criminal Code §22-404(a)(1) dictates, “Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.” Generally, assault requires four elements: (1) ability to carry out a threat (i.e. Stephen Hawking threatening you with a personal kick to the jaw would probably not constitute assault); (2) an unlawful attempt (the perp actually has to try to do something); (3) to commit a violent injury; (4) upon someone else (you can’t assault yourself – duh).

All of the elements are clearly fulfilled here. The movement toward hitting the camera, the attempt to grab the student, the attempt to collar the student, the achievement of those goals – all constitute simple assault. One of the most common defenses to assault is consent – if you’re an S&M freak, for example, you’re going to have trouble claiming assault. But in this case, the kid is telling the Congressman to let him go, and actually threatens to sue him. The Congressman doesn’t comply. And he doesn’t get immunity just because he’s a Congressman – Congressional immunity only applies to speech during Congressional debate, not to grabbing students by their necks. If it did, Teddy Kennedy would have had to worry a whole hell of a lot less during his profligate lifetime.

So, will the DC police do anything about it? Will Nancy Pelosi’s ethics committee do anything about it? Or will they claim it’s just another taped hoax, and ignore the dangerous and volatile behavior of one of their caucus members?

Deflation is a concept many Americans have a tough time understanding.  They do understand the concept of Social Security.  As Federal budget deficits soaring, the public is being barraged by late night advertisements to buy gold as an inflationary hedge.  Unfortunately, the deflationary environment we are facing today is the biggest threat to the Social Security check Joe the Plumber is counting on for retirement.

The definition of deflation as a decrease in the general prices of goods and services may be simple, but a Google search for articles on deflation generates 3.5 million “hits”, versus a whopping 354 million “hits” for inflation.  This demonstrates that Americans are 100 to 1 more knowledgeable of inflation!

There have only been three bouts of deflation in the United States since its founding over 200 years ago. The first was the recession of 1836, when the currency in the United States contracted by about 30%.  The second was after 1865, when the Nation returned to a gold standard by retiring paper money printed during the Civil War.  The third period was the Great Depression, when prices and output fell by 25% from 1928 to 1933.  Very few Americans are familiar with the specifics of what happened during these periods, but they know it was a bad time for the “common man.”

Social Security was established during the Great Depression and continues to be the most important income stream for America’s seniors.  A large majority of the 16 million people over age 65 rely on Social Security for at least half of their income.  One-third of this group relies on Social Security for over 90% of their income.  Most retirees have come to rely on the annual cost-of-living increases in their check to make their life better.  In a deflationary environment we are facing today, few recipients are prepared for their check to actually shrink.

Social Security tax collections provide a very reliable gauge of strength or weakness of employment conditions for 160 million U.S. workers.  Ominously, for the first six months of 2010, Social Security Trust Fund collections are down 5% and benefit payments are up 4%.  This is the first cash flow deficit in the history of Social Security.

The 2009 Social Security’s annual report predicted Social Security would exceed payouts through at least 2016 and would continue to be solvent through at least 2037.  However, these erroneous assumptions were based on an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year.  With nearly 1 in 10 Americans still unemployed, Social Security is accelerating its race towards insolvency – we have finally reached the tipping point.

Ben Bernanke the Federal Reserve Chairman and 2009 “Time Man of the Year”, made his reputation as an expert on the Great Depression.  In a 2002 speech titled “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here”, The Chairman was asked if deflation was a threat to the economic health of the United States in the near future.  His response:

“So, is deflation a threat to the economic health of the United States? Not to leave you in suspense, I believe that the chance of significant deflation in the United States in the foreseeable future is extremely small, for two principal reasons. The first is the resilience and structural stability of the U.S. economy itself. Over the years, the U.S. economy has shown a remarkable ability to absorb shocks of all kinds, to recover, and to continue to grow. Flexible and efficient markets for labor and capital, an entrepreneurial tradition, and a general willingness to tolerate and even embrace technological and economic change all contribute to this resiliency. A particularly important protective factor in the current environment is the strength of our financial system: Despite the adverse shocks of the past year, our banking system remains healthy and well-regulated, and firm and household balance sheets are for the most part in good shape.”

By the time Congress is asked to battle deflation there will be limited weapons in their arsenal.  With Social Security up side down, $3 trillion in squandered stimulus, credit rating agencies threatening to downgrade the U.S. and 10% unemployment what can Washington do to stave off deflation?  Only two antidotes remain (1) raising taxes and (2) cutting benefits.  If the deflationary disease does not kill the patient, the treatment very well might.

If we are to stop the march of this nation towards socialism, it is imperative that we understand and educate our fellow citizens as to what socialism is like.  This need not be limited to distant readings of history books about the gulags in Russia.  Indeed we get a very gripping modern-day reminder of the horrors of socialism from a recent article in the New York Times on North Korea.

The piece begins:

YANJI, China — Like many North Koreans, the construction worker lived in penury. His state employer had not paid him for so long that he had forgotten his salary. Indeed, he paid his boss to be listed as a dummy worker so that he could leave his work site. Then he and his wife could scrape out a living selling small bags of detergent on the black market.

It hardly seemed that life could get worse. And then, one Saturday afternoon last November, his sister burst into his apartment in Chongjin with shocking news: the North Korean government had decided to drastically devalue the nation’s currency. The family’s life savings, about $1,560, had been reduced to about $30.

Last month the construction worker sat in a safe house in this bustling northern Chinese city, lamenting years of useless sacrifice. Vegetables for his parents, his wife’s asthma medicine, the navy track suit his 15-year-old daughter craved — all were forsworn on the theory that, even in North Korea, the future was worth saving for.

“Ai!” he exclaimed, cursing between sobs. “How we worked to save that money! Thinking about it makes me go crazy.”

Such is the horrifically arbitrary nature of communist regimes.  With the swift stroke of a pen the fruits of one’s labors can be reduced to nothing overnight.

Indeed,

North Koreans are used to struggle and heartbreak. But the Nov. 30 currency devaluation, apparently an attempt to prop up a foundering state-run economy, was for some the worst disaster since a famine that killed hundreds of thousands in the mid-1990s.

Given the government-controlled media, the perpetual propaganda leaves its citizens brainwashed:

At least two of those interviewed in China hewed to the official propaganda line that North Korea was a victim of die-hard enemies, its impoverishment a Western plot, its survival threatened by the United States, South Korea and Japan.

To this end says a ruling party official’s wife:

That’s why we have weapons to protect ourselves.

[...]

Our enemies are trying to hit us from all sides, and that’s why we lack electricity and good infrastructure. North Korea must keep its doors locked.

Sadly,

Others were more skeptical of the government’s propaganda, but still cast war as an inevitability. “We always wait for the invasion,” said one former primary school teacher. “My son says he wishes the war would come because life is too hard, and we will probably die anyway from starvation.”

When war is to be preferred to peace, one gets a sense as to the dire nature of a communist country.

How bad are things in North Korea?

Infant and maternal mortality rates jumped at least 30 percent from 1993 to 2008, and life expectancy fell by three years to 69 during the same period, according to North Korean census figures and the United Nations Population Fund.

The United Nations World Food Program says one in three North Korean children under the age of 5 are malnourished. More than one in four people need food aid, the agency says, but only about one in 17 will get it this year, partly because donors are reluctant to send aid to a country that has insisted on developing nuclear weapons.

The economy, and thus people’s lives are in shambles because the government is the economy.

Theoretically, everyone except minors, the elderly and mothers with young children works for the state. But state enterprises have been withering for 30 years, and North Koreans do all they can to escape work in them.

Farmers tend their own gardens as weeds overtake collective farms. Urban workers duck state assignments to peddle everything from metal scavenged from mothballed factories to televisions smuggled from China.

“If you don’t trade, you die,” said [a] former teacher, a round-faced 51-year-old woman with a ponytail. She went from obedient state employee to lawbreaking trader, but could not escape her plight.

Yet the government in devaluing the currency deliberately destroyed the very markets that were likely the only thing keeping many of its citizens alive.

Its aim was to divert the proceeds of North Korea’s vast entrepreneurial underground — its street markets — to its cash-starved government businesses. The markets are the sole source of income for many North Koreans, but they flout the government’s credo of economic socialism.

The contrast between the (relatively) free world of South Korea and that of enslaved North Korea is a living testament to the superiority of capitalism:

When the Korean Peninsula was divided in 1945, South Korea was poorer than its neighbor. Now its average worker earns 15 times as much as an average North Korean, according to cost-of-living-adjusted data.

As a result:

The number of defectors who make it through China to South Korea has steadily risen for a decade, hitting nearly 3,000 last year.

But many are not so lucky.  Due to the failure of the centrally planned economy, run by the subhuman Kim Jong-Il, people are starving to death.  So for the aforementioned teacher:

What once was an all-day job shrank by 2004 to morning duty; schools closed at noon. At least 15 of her 50 students dropped out or left after an hour, too hungry to study.

“It is very hard to teach a starving child,” she said. “Even sitting at a desk is difficult for them.”

Teachers were hungry, too. Her monthly salary scarcely bought two pounds of rice, she said. A university graduate, she pulled her own child out of the third grade in 1998, instead sending her to a neighbor to learn to sew.

She quit in 2004 to sell corn noodles outside Chongjin’s main market, an expanse of stalls and plastic tarpaulins half the size of a city block where traders mainly sell Chinese goods, including toothpaste, sewing needles and DVDs of banned South Korean soap operas.

But noodles were barely profitable, so she tried a riskier trade in state-controlled commodities: pine nuts and red berries used in a popular tea. That scheme collapsed in October. After she and her partners collected 17 sacks of goods from a village, a guard at a checkpoint confiscated them all instead of taking a bribe to let them pass. She was left with $300 in debt.

The plight of a North Korean construction worker is also staggering:

On paper…a Chongjin state construction company employs him. But the company has few supplies and no cash to pay its employees. So like more than a third of the workers, the worker said, he pays roughly $5 a month to sign in as an employee on the company’s daily log — and then toil elsewhere.

Such payments, widespread at smaller state companies, are supposed to keep companies solvent, said one 62-year-old woman who is a trader in Chongjin. Even a major enterprise like the city’s metal refinery has not paid salaries since 2007, she and others said, though workers there collect 10 days worth of food rations each month.

“How would the companies survive if they didn’t get money from the workers?” she asked without irony.

Recently, the construction worker’s firm has been more active. The state has resurfaced Chongjin’s only paved road and built a hospital and a university for the 2012 centennial of the birth of Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il’s father and North Korea’s founder.

But the burst of projects bore a cost: each family was required to deliver 17 bags of pebbles every month to its local party committee. The construction worker enlisted his elderly parents to scour creek beds and fields for rocks that the family smashed by hand into grape-size stones.

One might think that the leaders of the country, like those of the Soviet Union, who after various failed economic experiments resorted to partial privatization, might do the same.  But no:

The government periodically tries to rein in the markets, regulating prices, hours, types of goods sold, the sellers’ age and sex and even whether they haul their wares on bicycles or their backs.

No doubt this is all for the public good.

What did the party official’s wife have to say about the aforementioned wealth-destroying devaluation, that Kim instituted as a response to the markets that had become “a birthplace of all sorts of nonsocialist practices”?

The party official’s wife, hair softly curled, a knock-off designer purse by her side, boasted about her six-room house with two color televisions and a garden. In the next breath, she praised devaluation as well-deserved punishment of those who had cheated the state, even though she acknowledged that it led to chaos and noted that a top finance official was executed for mismanaging the policy.

“A lot of bad people had gotten rich doing illegal trading with China, while the good people at the state companies didn’t have enough money,” she said. “So the haves gave to the have-nots.”

How far away does this rhetoric seem from that which we are hearing on a daily basis in our nation?  The politicians and the politically-connected seize the wealth and stupefy the people with the opiate of the “general welfare.”

The rest of the article, which I strongly urge readers to take a look at, painfully but necessarily shows at a personal level the utter desperation of the situation for the North Korean people.

Why do I cite this piece, besides the fact that it is a moving and worthwhile one?

Though sizable swaths of Americans including the patriotic readers of this site are highly upset, this has not been enough today to stop a bloodless revolution in which we “regulate” as opposed to nationalize our industries, in which our Executive abrogates private contracts, but only in an extenuating circumstance, in which our financial industry is “assisted” by money-printing and public spending, but only of course to avert worldwide collapse.  Today our administration only threatens to put the the boot on the throat of a company.

But we are most certainly and most thankfully of course nowhere near North Korea.  What we have today in the US is the more civilized, kinder, gentler, more “progressive” version of socialism.  We have a socialism that though showing its true sadistic face in spurts is more of a smiley creeping one; one which dangerously because of its subtlety is far more acceptable to the sensibilities of our people, either out of our apathy or ignorance.

No, we are not close to North Korea, but I cite this article because the Eastern version of socialism should serve as a reminder to the West that we best not travel this road any further.

From today’s Politico:

As the greatest environmental catastrophe in U.S. history has played out on Obama’s watch, the environmental movement has essentially given him a pass — all but refusing to unleash any vocal criticism against the president even as the public has grown more frustrated by Obama’s performance.

About a dozen environmental groups took out a full page ad in the Washington Post Tuesday – not to fault Obama over the ecological catastrophe but to thank him for putting on hold an Alaska drilling project. “We deeply appreciate your decision. . .,” the ad says to Obama.

“President Obama is the best environmental president we’ve had since Teddy Roosevelt,” Sierra Club chairman Carl Pope told the Bangor Daily News last week. “He obviously did not take the crisis in the Minerals Management Service adequately seriously, that’s clear. But his agencies have done a phenomenally good job.”

Some say there’s little doubt that if a spill like the one in the Gulf took place on former President George W. Bush’s watch, environmental groups would have unleashed an unsparing fury on the Republican in the White House. For their liberal ally, Obama, they seem willing to hold their tongues.

“These guys have bet the farm on this administration,” said Ted Nordhaus, chairman of an environmental think tank, the Breakthrough Institute. “There has been a real hesitancy to criticize this administration out of a sense that they’re kind of the only game in town…..These guys are so beholden to this administration to move their agenda that I think they’re unwilling to criticize them.”

The most prominent voices of outrage have come not from mainstream environmental groups, but from the likes of political consultant James Carville, comedian Bill Maher and Plaquemines, La., Parish President Billy Nungesser.

Carville’s call for Obama to hold BP’s feet to the fire has penetrated the national consciousness in a way that comments from traditional environmental groups have not.

“ ‘Who’s your daddy?’ has become the talking point of the crisis so far,” observed Matt Nisbet, a professor of environmental communications at American University, referring to a comment by Carville. “It’s difficult for the national environmental groups to be critics of the administration—they’re working so closely with the administration…..They have reacted cautiously and softly.”

Continue reading here. The one silver lining of the Obama Administration is that it has exposed the blatant hypocrisy of huge swaths of the left. A host of issues that were alleged to have a moral urgency, are suddenly unimportant now that a Democrat is in the White House. The emphasis on these issues in the last few years was simply tactical, a device to help Obama win the Presidency. In the end, it really is all about power.

The days of pausing between primary and general elections are over.  The stakes for election these days are simply too high.  Our problems are great and we need leaders up to the task.  Jerry Brown, in but two days, proved to everyone that he is not up to the task.

Going Negative Because Brown Has No Plan.

Ultimately, voters prefer to vote for something over voting against something.  The greatest of our leaders seek not just to get elected – but to get elected with a mandate for action.  In order to achieve that mandate, a leader must provide a clear road map of where he or she wants to take the state or the country.  To be sure, campaigns – especially between candidates of the same party – feature negative ads – especially down the wire.  But if we learned anything from the Whitman/Poizner race, it is something we already knew: if the voters perceive your first action is to go negative – then you will drive up your own negatives as well – and they may never know what positive you have to offer.

Before we get to Jerry Brown, it is important to note that there can be little doubt that Meg Whitman has a plan.  Months ago she published a stunning 48 page brochure on that plan.  It is stunning because most politicians don’t want to go on record with such exactitude lest they open themselves up to criticism.  Leadership, however, doesn’t pause for fear.

In that 48 pages, you can find Meg’s 3 point plan (1) to create jobs, (2) cut spending, (3) and fix education.  Those are incredibly pressing problems and her focused plans tell me that she already knows the first lesson of a new government executive:  don’t chase too many rabbits at once – lest you catch none of them – and so she plans to veto the hundreds and hundreds of yearly bills outside those 3 priorities.

How does she intend to achieve her top 3 priorities?  She will achieve them with such common sense plans as (1) eliminating the $800 fee that new business start-ups are currently required to pay in California (p. 11),  (2) providing a more favorable depreciation schedule to encourage farmers, manufacturers and other companies to invest in new equipment and technology (p. 12), (3) consolidating duplicative tax collection agencies (p. 28) and (4) eliminating California’s cap on charter schools (p. 32) among many other sound ideas in her 48 page plan.

What is Jerry Brown’s plan?  He hasn’t proposed a plan despite knowing that he was going to run for this office for the better part of two years.  After all, why rush into something like plan to tackle the problems facing a state that represents over 16% of the US economy, record unemployment and 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients?

What is Jerry to do without a plan?  Go negative – and go negative he did right out of the general election box.   The very first day after Whitman won her primary – Brown and his allies went negative with ads and rhetoric.  The office of California Governor should expect more than that and so should our voters.

Going Jerry Because He Has Nothing to Say.  It is no secret that Jerry Brown has hoof and mouth disease.  After all, he got that moniker Governor Moonbeam the old-fashioned way – he earned it.  Since then, if anything, he has become worse.  On day 2 of the general election cycle, Jerry Brown compared Whitman to a Nazi propagandist.  It was beyond an ugly remark and certainly beneath the office.  It is in keeping, however, with Brown’s undisciplined, rambling comments that have become his speeches of late.

In the final analysis, Meg Whitman has put forth a comprehensive road to recovery worthy of a general election and the Governorship.   Read it and get to know it.  Jerry Brown, on the other hand, even after three decades in office, has proven in just 2 days, that he is not up to the job.

For long time Obama watchers this comes as no surprise. Bill Kristol is reporting  that the United States plans to abandon Israel at the UN Security Councel next week.  According to the Weekly Standard Editor, the Obama administration has been informing  foreign governments that it will support a resolution to set up an independent UN Commission to investigate Israeli actions in the guerrilla flotilla incident.

Apparently the President does not care

a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations.

b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas.

c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

The most recent  ’independent” investigation of Israel conducted by the UN, the Goldstone Report, threw any standards of investigation out the window. The report violated international standards for inquries, including UN rules on fact- finding. The Commission systematically favored witnesses and evidence put forward by anti-Israel advocates, and dismissed evidence and testimony that would undermine its case. The commission relied extensively on mediating agencies, especially UN and NGOs, which have a documented hostility to Israel; and reproduces earlier reports and claims from these agencies. And that’s just for a start. It is clear that Barack Obama is looking for the UN to create another anti-Israel Kangaroo court.

While UN Ambassador Susan Rice is reported to have played an important role in pushing for U.S. support of a UN investigation, the decision is, one official stressed, of course the president’s. The government of Israel has been consulting with the U.S. government on its own Israeli investigative panel, to be led by a retired supreme court justice, that would include respected international participants, including one from the U.S. But the Obama administration is reportedly saying that such a “kosher panel” is not good enough to satisfy the international community, or the Obama White House.

Remember, earlier this week Obama spoke about his desire for an international of inquiry. Also,  Ambassador Rice’s recommendation was foreshadowed when she remained mute during the UN’s Human Rights Council condemnation of Israel over the indecent.

There is the chance that this might all be a trail balloon leaked to Kristol. The White House may just want to check to seek if they can get away with this action without arousing the pro-Israel Democratic Party supporters in Congress. This group has been lacking the guts to confront the President since he began distance himself from Israel last year.

Its not an unusual move, in April the White House leaked a trial balloon about the US imposing a solution on Israel:

Reports in The Washington Post and The New York Times this week said former U.S. national security advisers Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sandy Berger met with Jones in the White House last month and recommended that the U.S. advance stalled peace talks by proposing its own peace proposal. President Barack Obama attended part of the meeting and listened to the proposal, the reports said.

When that report was leaked there was very little objection from the Democratic Party, while the GOP stood up to protect Israel from the will of the administration.

Beginning with his Cairo Speech, Barack Obama has been slowly distancing the  United States from Israel, while at the same time ingratiating  himself to the Muslim nations. If this action does indeed happen, it may be that Obama  is looking to accelerate the pace of that distancing.

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson represents everything wrong with politics today. Even fellow Democratic Party/Progressive Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) says that Grayson has issues. Back in October, Weiner commented:

“Is this news to you that this guy’s [Grayson] one fry short of a Happy Meal?”

The Obama Administration announced that it will urge government agencies to trim five percent from their budgets by reining in wasteful and duplicative programs – and redirect how that money is spent.  Less than 20 minutes later, the Administration’s Budget Chief Peter Orszag admitted that the initiative was as much about spending as it is deficit reduction.  To be clear, the Administration did not commit to use those cuts to pay down the deficits.

Look, trimming these budgets is a good thing – as Republicans have said repeatedly.  But is giving the heads of these agencies the ability to redirect money really an indication that Washington is prepared to bring our deficits under control before the European debt crisis migrates across the Atlantic?  Or is it simply posturing?

The good news is that the administration, at least on the surface, is finally getting the message that the American people are fed up with the reckless culture of spending prevailing over Washington.  America has soured on an agenda that sets out to double the debt in five years and triple it in 10.  That is why we launched YouCut, an effort to begin to transform the culture in Washington from one focused entirely on spending to one that forces measures to cut waste and save money.

Now, after more than 700,000 YouCut votes have been cast to remove specific wasteful spending items in the budget, and three House votes later (that would have saved $85 billion had enough Democrats supported them), the President is beginning to talk about finding ways to save taxpayer money.

To be sure, we welcome the administration’s calls for austerity in government agencies.  We also support the president’s request for new line-item veto authority so that he can remove needless discretionary spending. Yet it’s painfully obvious that these limited measures are woefully inadequate given the scale of our problems. But actions speak louder than words.

The problem with the administration’s “cost-cutting” strategies is that they settle for processes that only theoretically might someday save the taxpayers money. They are a convenient substitute for immediate, material spending cuts that could be implemented right now.  What is the President and his party willing to do TODAY to cut spending?

House Republicans have already brought to the floor roughly $85 billion in direct cuts that would take effect immediately. The savings were the product of the three spending cuts that received the most votes on YouCut during the last three weeks in which Congress met. They include terminating a new $25 billion welfare program that undermines the welfare reform effort of the mid 1990s; discarding a pay raise for federal employees that costs $30 billion; and implementing a reform of government-sponsored bailout behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would return $30 billion to the taxpayers.  By the end of the year, we will have brought hundreds of billions – if not more than a trillion – dollars in spending cuts to the floor.  There will be a public record of who in the House wants to cut spending, and who is blocking it.

Note to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid:  The people are watching, actions speak louder than words.  Start cutting spending NOW.  To all of you – please take note of who is trying to cut spending and those who think you aren’t paying attention.

Timing couldn’t be worse on this one, and frankly, we are broke.  Via the NYT:

President Obama promised a $400 million aid package for the West Bank and Gaza on Wednesday, as the United States scrambled to come up with a way out of the stalemate in the Middle East exacerbated by the Gaza flotilla incident last week.

Mr. Obama, meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, said that the money would go to housing and schools. White House officials said that the money also would help increase access to drinking water and to help address health and infrastructure needs.

“While we work with our partners in the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, and the international community to put such a strategy in place, these projects represent a down payment on the United States’ commitment to Palestinians in Gaza, who deserve a better life and expanded opportunities, and the chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

Is this Obama’s way of saying he agrees with Helen Thomas–by offering the Palestinians a huge payout of American tax dollars.  Nothing says ‘Sorry, I’m with you,’ like $400 million in US aid.

Aren’t the liberals out there tired of our money being sent overseas yet? That $400 million could be used for public schools, roads, bridges, and, of course, health care.

And in reality, did Helen’s remarks really differ that much from the administration’s position of standing with Palestine and rebuking Israel.  It just comes out better and much more diplomatic when speech writers prepare your remarks and you rehearse it, than when someone asks you out of the blue.

And, yes, you can equate Israel, stop building settlements/neighborhoods with “Get the hell out of Palestine.”

The question (because there is always the same question) is Why?  Why did Obama quickly throw Helen Thomas under the bus?  It really wasn’t a secret what Thomas thought , and it wasn’t a secret that Obama fully supported Palestine.

Now, it will be even more interesting to find out who takes Helen’s empty chair in the front row.

I just can’t help but hum “The Wheels on the Bus.”

More Hope and Change–

Barack Obama gave his marching orders:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama To His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama to BP: “We talk to these folks… So I know whose a$$ to kick.”

Now it’s playing out on the streets.

On Tuesday June 8, the North Carolina Tea Party Patriots held a protest against government bailouts in front of Rep. Mel Watt’s (D-N.C.) Greensboro office. During the protest a raging leftist goon, Governor Spencer, turned out, disrupted the protest, confronted the patriots, argued with them and then… He started throwing punches!

The whole thing was caught on tape.

The raging goon, Governor Spencer, slugged Nathan Tabor, a business owner and head of the Forsyth County Republican Party and a former candidate for senator.

But, that’s not all…

Governor Spencer is a union organizer, a socialist and a black liberation activist.
Spencer led the Greensboro K-Mart protests of 1995 and mobilized families, communities, and “the Pulpit Forum of Greensboro, a coalition of progressive clergy, to commit acts of civil disobedience.”

Word World reported:

K-Mart Labor Struggle, 1995
Calvin Miller, Greg Headon, Governor Spencer, and Deborah Compton-Holt explained how K-Mart Warehouse Center employment practices and conditions had become unbearable, causing workers to organize around questions of economic justice. Attempts at organizing had been quelled. These veteran labor organizers recounted how they mobilized their families, communities, and the Pulpit Forum of Greensboro, a coalition of progressive clergy, to commit acts of civil disobedience and bring pressure to bear on K-Mart until they negotiated in good faith for a fairer contract. In the end, the workers triumphed, although the struggle continues. Students from local colleges, both black and white, joined the K-Mart boycotts and there was massive media coverage throughout the nation.

Governor Spencer and his associates “enlisted race to resist heirarchy.”

And, maybe you noticed this from the video… Governor Spencer has a black liberation flag bumper sticker on his car.

And, that’s just what we know right now.

The real question is “Was this just a chance beating?”… Or, “Was this Governor Spencer just following orders from above?”
You’ll have to decide that for yourself.

“ACORN HQ is wkg [working] for the Democratic Party,” so say the newly released FBI records.  The handwritten notes provide a laundry list of underhanded activities related to elections in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2007.

The documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group in Washington, DC, concern the arrests of eight workers from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, aka ACORN, for violations of election laws and voter fraud in Missouri.

ACORN is a collection of “community organizations” purportedly promoting various social issues relevant to low-income families, and large-scale voter registration drives have been a significant aspect of that outreach since the 1980s. During the 2006 mid-term elections there were numerous reports of voter fraud on the part of ACORN’s canvassers, which led to investigations in numerous states. The 2006 federal investigation of the allegations in Missouri led to several convictions, but after a similar investigation in Connecticut was halted by the Obama Justice Department in 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the documents produced by the earlier investigation.

The result was a collection of FBI documents which included copies of arrest warrants and court documents and over one hundred pages of handwritten notes from the FBI investigators regarding the ACORN employees’ attitudes and actions.

The investigators were told that ACORN had “told employees not to talk to the FBI“, and that “anyone who was against PV (Project Vote) or ACORN’s goals [were] ‘right wing.’” The investigators noted that Project Vote paid ACORN “whether the [voter registration] cards were fake or not” and one of the employees they interviewed “said ‘You treat the cards like $ (cash).’” Despite knowing that submitting fake voter registration cards was against the law, employees detailed several methods for creating fake cards. One explained that they would get “some names…right from the phone book and made up the rest.” Another “thought if she used a completely fake name it would be less like ID theft.”

The Connecticut and Missouri investigations are not stand-alone incidents, however. ACORN has a long history of encouraging falsification of voter registration cards. Between 2004 and 2006, they had been implicated in investigations in 12 states, and in 2007 were involved in the largest instance of voter fraud in Washington state’s history. In 2009, ACORN was investigated by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee which issued an 88 page report which declared that “[t]he weight of evidence against ACORN and its affiliates is astounding.”

Astounding, indeed.  These documents show the need for a national criminal investigation by the Obama Justice Department into ACORN. Is Attorney General Holder doing nothing because of Obama’s close connections to ACORN and Project Vote? The information in these new documents has national implications that cry out for further investigation,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Profit used to be a good thing; it allowed companies to reinvest in their businesses, to lower prices and bring new products to market, to employ people, and enable those people to live comfortable lives.  In the last few years, however, the word “profit” has taken a negative turn.  It has gone from that which affords companies their ability to continue to operate to an affront to consumers, the result of greed. So it is not surprising that the mentality that profit is bad has crept into the realm of for-profit higher education.

Education is rarely thought of as a business. With so many universities operating with tax dollars subsidizing their every move and reports of large endowments in the news, it’s no wonder the concept of for-profit college is foreign to many.  But there are many for-profit universities operating and educating people on campuses and in the privacy of the student’s homes across the country, and these institutions have recently become targets for criticism.

Why attack? The ostensible reason is concern over quality.  In the past most for-profit higher learning institutions were Internet based and unaccredited. Neither of these facts are unknown to their students when they enroll, and neither are of any concern to anyone other than the students themselves.

Accreditation is a certification by one of many regional boards that makes transferring from one accredited university to another much easier by allowing for credits earned at one to count towards a degree at another. This system saves student’s money by assuring the classes they took at, say, a community or two-year college will count towards their degree should they transfer to a four-year school.  Accreditation is like the popular club colleges and universities seek to join to be part of the “in” crowd, even though it’s not necessary in order to operate.

Normally the accreditation process takes years to muddle through, and a lot of money. In recent years, however, for-profit colleges have been obtaining accreditation by purchasing smaller, financially failing colleges that are accredited, thereby transferring that accreditation to the rest of the company’s educational institutions. It’s a smart business move considering the regional boards that accredit institutions of higher learning allow this practice, though some are now instituting restrictions such as wait times before accreditation transfers.  The only changes to the institution are ones of ownership and a significant expansion of the student body, a desired outcome for any struggling company dependent upon consumers voluntarily choosing their service, and an expansion of student’s ability to attend classes online from anywhere, not just limited to a geographic campus. It’s a win for students who get more options to choose the educational institution that is right for them and the method of attending classes that best fits their needs.

So why are some crying foul now that ITT Educational Services has purchased failing Daniel Webster College? By all accounts Webster was going under, the debt-ridden college was unable to attract enough students to pay their bills, but they had accreditation.  ITT saw an opportunity and took it, obtaining the college, keeping their current student body’s education intact, and brightening the now secure future of Daniel Webster College.

Business Week recently ran an article entitled “Your Taxes Support For-Profits as They Buy Colleges,” that tried to make the case that ITT and other such companies were getting rich off of tax dollars rather than market forces, but that headline was hardly accurate.  The article mentioned the increased amount of financial aid students at ITT would be eligible for but failed to point out that they would get none of it unless they were able to attract financial aid eligible students to their institution.

The article states that when ITT, or like institutions, acquire failing accredited colleges, “Typically, the goal is to transform the schools into online behemoths at taxpayer expense.” Were they lining up for grants and giveaways, sure, that case could be made. But they’re attracting more low-income and military students that are financial aid eligible, not suckling the government teat.

Serving an underserved population is the stated goal of much of what government is attempting to do, particularly in the area of broadband Internet access, so why deem for profit colleges unworthy to serve this population?

Aside from the fact that profit has been turned into a four-letter word of late, there may be another – unions. While most public sector colleges are staffed by tenured union members, these new entrants into the field are generally not, and nothing makes some people angrier than a non-union workforce competing with a unionized one (just ask Wal-Mart).

So if this trend of attacking for-profit institutions of higher learning continues, keep in mind the following: 1 – No one is forced to attend them, students choose to do so. And low-income students are entitled to financial aid. 2 – Profit is not a bad thing, and it must be earned. 3 – What is the motivation of the person making the accusation? Could it be competing institutions that don’t want the competition, or union supporters whose only concern is increasing their dues-paying members?  As with anything, when the “what” is exposed as bogus, the “who” and “why” become all important. Something to keep in mind…

In an amusing coincidence, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I were both in Latin America this week offering fiscal policy advice. But it won’t surprise you to know that Mrs. Clinton’s suggestions are radically different than the advice I provided. She spoke in Ecuador and, according to an AFP report, said it was time for “the wealthy across the Americas to pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes in order to eliminate poverty and promote economic opportunity for all.” She also claimed that “her appeal to overhaul tax systems did not amount to ‘class warfare’ and was instead a recognition that the ‘winner-take-all-approach’ was a drag on progress.” The AFP story concludes with Mrs. Clinton asserting, “We can’t mince words about this. Levels of tax evasion are unacceptably high,”

By contrast, in my remarks to the Fundacion Libertad in Panama and in my speech to the Chamber of Commerce in El Salvador, I explained that academic research shows that better tax compliance is best achieved by lowering tax rates and eliminating inefficient and corrupt spending programs so that taxpayers have more confidence that their money is not being wasted. But let’s touch on something even more important than economics. I also made a moral argument about the danger of giving national tax authorities too much power and information – especially in a region where governments oftentimes are the source of oppression, expropriation, and tyranny. Simply stated, there are some things that are more important than obeying tax laws. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity video explains that so-called tax havens are an extremely important refuge for people who are subject to persecution and other forms of government malfeasance.

Let’s consider some Latin American examples. Imagine a political dissident in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has turned that country into a thugocracy and opponents of his sinister regime are vulnerable to having their assets expropriated (and worse). Thankfully, many Venezuelans are able to protect themselves from socialist tyranny by putting their money in Cayman, Panama, or Miami (the U.S. is a tax haven for non-U.S. people). But if Mrs. Clinton got to make the rules, tax havens would no longer exist and Chavez would be empowered.

Or what about families in Mexico, who rightfully are afraid that if they keep their money in the country and report it on their tax returns, corrupt bureaucrats in the national tax office will sell their names to criminal gangs and suddenly their children will be kidnapped and they will have to deal with the horror of getting a ransom note accompanied by a child’s finger. Fortunately, many Mexicans can guard against this horrific possibility by placing their assets in Cayman, Panama, or Miami. But in Mrs. Clinton’s ideal world, those options would not exist and many more people would experience the nightmare of vicious crime.

And consider the plight of Argentinians. A few years ago, the nation’s venal government stole the private pension assets of the people. This is in addition to radical currency devaluations that have wiped out a big chunk of people’s savings. Prudent Argentinians have avoided these forms of back-door thievery by moving funds to Cayman, Panama, and Miami. In the Orwellian world envisioned by Mrs. Clinton, however, tax havens wouldn’t exist and governments would have carte blanche to engage in bad policy.

This is not the first indication of Mrs. Clinton’s government-über-alles mindset as Secretary of State. Let’s remember that she urged class-warfare tax policy for Pakistan and more recently said Brazil was a role model for soak-the-rich tax policy (a strange assertion since the top tax rate there is only 27.5 percent). If nothing else, at least we can give her credit for being consistent.

But if I have to choose between Mrs. Clinton’s consistent statism and protecting the liberty and freedom of oppressed and persecuted people, it’s no contest. Politicians and senior government appointees all over the world act as if folks in the private sector are nothing more than serfs and peasants who have an obligation to pay ever-higher tax burdens, so we should be happy that so-called tax havens offer a refuge – even if we don’t live in failed states such as Venezuela, Mexico, and Argentina. Actually, since Obama is trying to turn us into Greece, maybe this issue will be important for Americans even sooner than we think.

In an amusing coincidence, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I were both in Latin America this week offering fiscal policy advice. But it won’t surprise you to know that Mrs. Clinton’s suggestions are radically different than the advice I provided. She spoke in Ecuador and, according to an AFP report, said it was time for “the wealthy across the Americas to pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes in order to eliminate poverty and promote economic opportunity for all.” She also claimed that “her appeal to overhaul tax systems did not amount to ‘class warfare’ and was instead a recognition that the ‘winner-take-all-approach’ was a drag on progress.” The AFP story concludes with Mrs. Clinton asserting, “We can’t mince words about this. Levels of tax evasion are unacceptably high,”

By contrast, in my remarks to the Fundacion Libertad in Panama and in my speech to the Chamber of Commerce in El Salvador, I explained that academic research shows that better tax compliance is best achieved by lowering tax rates and eliminating inefficient and corrupt spending programs so that taxpayers have more confidence that their money is not being wasted. But let’s touch on something even more important than economics. I also made a moral argument about the danger of giving national tax authorities too much power and information – especially in a region where governments oftentimes are the source of oppression, expropriation, and tyranny. Simply stated, there are some things that are more important than obeying tax laws. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity video explains that so-called tax havens are an extremely important refuge for people who are subject to persecution and other forms of government malfeasance.

Let’s consider some Latin American examples. Imagine a political dissident in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has turned that country into a thugocracy and opponents of his sinister regime are vulnerable to having their assets expropriated (and worse). Thankfully, many Venezuelans are able to protect themselves from socialist tyranny by putting their money in Cayman, Panama, or Miami (the U.S. is a tax haven for non-U.S. people). But if Mrs. Clinton got to make the rules, tax havens would no longer exist and Chavez would be empowered.

Or what about families in Mexico, who rightfully are afraid that if they keep their money in the country and report it on their tax returns, corrupt bureaucrats in the national tax office will sell their names to criminal gangs and suddenly their children will be kidnapped and they will have to deal with the horror of getting a ransom note accompanied by a child’s finger. Fortunately, many Mexicans can guard against this horrific possibility by placing their assets in Cayman, Panama, or Miami. But in Mrs. Clinton’s ideal world, those options would not exist and many more people would experience the nightmare of vicious crime.

And consider the plight of Argentinians. A few years ago, the nation’s venal government stole the private pension assets of the people. This is in addition to radical currency devaluations that have wiped out a big chunk of people’s savings. Prudent Argentinians have avoided these forms of back-door thievery by moving funds to Cayman, Panama, and Miami. In the Orwellian world envisioned by Mrs. Clinton, however, tax havens wouldn’t exist and governments would have carte blanche to engage in bad policy.

This is not the first indication of Mrs. Clinton’s government-über-alles mindset as Secretary of State. Let’s remember that she urged class-warfare tax policy for Pakistan and more recently said Brazil was a role model for soak-the-rich tax policy (a strange assertion since the top tax rate there is only 27.5 percent). If nothing else, at least we can give her credit for being consistent.

But if I have to choose between Mrs. Clinton’s consistent statism and protecting the liberty and freedom of oppressed and persecuted people, it’s no contest. Politicians and senior government appointees all over the world act as if folks in the private sector are nothing more than serfs and peasants who have an obligation to pay ever-higher tax burdens, so we should be happy that so-called tax havens offer a refuge – even if we don’t live in failed states such as Venezuela, Mexico, and Argentina. Actually, since Obama is trying to turn us into Greece, maybe this issue will be important for Americans even sooner than we think.

On May 24^th, at Track 16 Gallery in fashionable Bergamont Station in Santa Monica, CA, dozens of marginal works of art were nearly destroyed by the exploding heads of some of SoCal’s finest and most dogmatic liberals, as a roomful of them were injected with some cognitive dissonance when author Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the author of Infidel, a deeply personal account of her disillusionment with and rejection of her Muslim upbringing, as well as her latest book Nomad, which chronicles her continuing journey. She also collaborated with late film director Theo Van Gogh on the short documentary film Submission, the release of which resulted in the brutal assassination of Van Gogh by a homegrown Dutch Islamic jihadist and ultimately drove her from the Netherlands because of her inability to find adequate security there. She continues to be an outspoken critic of the subjugation and mistreatment of women under fundamentalist Islam, and the AHA Foundation which she founded aims to combat “several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.” These would seem to be fairly non-controversial goals, especially in a pro-feminist Western society, but they received a rather chilly response that night from the tolerant progressives of Santa Monica.

During the interview portion of the evening, I was struck by how quiet the room was. Statements made by Ms. Ali that in most cities in middle America would have received applause were met with a respectful but stony silence. When the floor was opened for questions from the seemingly stunned audience, one after another of Santa Monica’s finest political thinkers rose unsteadily from their chairs to ask a question that might allow them to hold onto their deeply-held and carefully nuanced progressive beliefs in the face of someone who must have seemed to them to be an untouchable figure, a woman born in Somalia who left Islam and became an atheist, as well as an unrelenting critic of the injustice and violence that is routinely taught in the Muslim world.

In response to a lady who asked passionately if it was not true that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had created more terrorists than they had thwarted, Ms. Ali calmly replied that the jihadists of course used these wars as propaganda for recruitment, just as they would use any situation for recruitment, since they are in the business of destroying free societies and bringing them under submission to shari’a law, and that no matter what the West did, the jihadists would recruit and terrorize.

One very confused and shaken white-haired gentleman could barely form a question, stammering that he had “great respect” for her but disagreed with almost everything she said. As he rambled on, many of his colleagues began to call at him “What’s your question?” and “No speeches, ask a question!” He finally concluded with a semi-coherent plea along the lines of, “Well, how do we deal with these extremists?”

Ali replied that once you have decided to “deal” with the jihadists, you have legitimized their demands of submission, and that you cannot “deal” with fanatics who wish to destroy your nice free society with bike paths and reusable shopping bags and replace it with a totalitarian theocracy. She went on to object to the vague use of the term “extremists,” asking “Extremists of what?” If we were talking about white supremacists, or radical Marxists or Communists or any other “-ists” that used terrorism and violence to bring about their goals, we would not hesitate to identify the ideas behind their philosophy that drove them to such ends. Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

She deftly fielded a question about the “perversion” of Islam by fanatics by proclaiming that she was more concerned about the perversion of the word “liberalism,” because of the willingness of many Western liberals to accept and excuse some of the most heinous criminal acts committed by practitioners of the Muslim faith, like arranged marriages, spousal abuse, subjugation of women by force, denial of education to females, and female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism and a so-called “respect” for other civilizations. American liberals, she said, appear to be more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than most conservatives are. This led her into a repudiation of multiculturalism, and how, despite some honorable intentions in its origins, it had mutated into a belief system that actually denies access to the freedom and justice guaranteed by the American Constitution by allowing injustice to continue within protected minority communities by not encouraging them to assimilate and become full Americans.

In response to a question about how long America should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said it was her hope that the Americans would stay for 50 or 100 years, if that is how long it took to modernize those societies, even while acknowledging that there did not seem to be the political will for such an effort to be sustained.

The best question of the evening came from a young man who simply asked what would be the best way to bring about an “Enlightenment” in the Muslim world. She replied that the best way would be to ask them questions about their religion and cause “cognitive dissonance” among those who blindly follow the violent exhortations of their imams. I actually laughed out loud when she used those words, as the cognitive dissonance occurring at that moment in the Track 16 gallery was practically audible. I could swear I heard the word “What?!?” thudding over and over again in the formerly comfortable brains of those around me.

The only applause of the night (!) signaled the end of the evening, and as I lined up to have my book signed by Ms. Ali, I was struck by how short the line was. Out of the 150 to 200 people I guessed were in attendance, only about 25 or so lined up to greet this remarkable individual. As I made my way down the line, I passed pockets of fervent discussion, and caught fragments here and there. I overheard one rather agitated gentleman say, “I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.

Ms. Ali, flanked by 3 or 4 pleasant-looking but serious suits, a private Secret Service force necessary to protect her from the religion of peace, signed my book as I stammered out an inadequate “Thank you so much for your courage.” She smiled and said, “Thank you very much.”

Not a very scintillating exchange I know, but as I left the gallery that evening, I realized that the real crux of the matter, and the truly paralyzing aspect for the liberals around me, was simply that — her courage. To the Hollywood community, a community that did not even have the courage to list Theo Van Gogh during the 2005 Oscar ceremony as one of the people in film who had died that year, a woman willing to continue espousing her deep convictions after being threatened with death by the same people who had murdered her colleague was utterly confounding. And for someone like me, a person who writes from behind a mask, not even for fear of death but of the economic retribution I might face from the supposedly tolerant community in which I live and work, the evening I spent in a room with Ayaan Hirsi Ali was all the more humbling.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Hollywood coward

On May 24^th, at Track 16 Gallery in fashionable Bergamont Station in Santa Monica, CA, dozens of marginal works of art were nearly destroyed by the exploding heads of some of SoCal’s finest and most dogmatic liberals, as a roomful of them were injected with some cognitive dissonance when author Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the author of Infidel, a deeply personal account of her disillusionment with and rejection of her Muslim upbringing, as well as her latest book Nomad, which chronicles her continuing journey. She also collaborated with late film director Theo Van Gogh on the short documentary film Submission, the release of which resulted in the brutal assassination of Van Gogh by a homegrown Dutch Islamic jihadist and ultimately drove her from the Netherlands because of her inability to find adequate security there. She continues to be an outspoken critic of the subjugation and mistreatment of women under fundamentalist Islam, and the AHA Foundation which she founded aims to combat “several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.” These would seem to be fairly non-controversial goals, especially in a pro-feminist Western society, but they received a rather chilly response that night from the tolerant progressives of Santa Monica.

During the interview portion of the evening, I was struck by how quiet the room was. Statements made by Ms. Ali that in most cities in middle America would have received applause were met with a respectful but stony silence. When the floor was opened for questions from the seemingly stunned audience, one after another of Santa Monica’s finest political thinkers rose unsteadily from their chairs to ask a question that might allow them to hold onto their deeply-held and carefully nuanced progressive beliefs in the face of someone who must have seemed to them to be an untouchable figure, a woman born in Somalia who left Islam and became an atheist, as well as an unrelenting critic of the injustice and violence that is routinely taught in the Muslim world.

In response to a lady who asked passionately if it was not true that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had created more terrorists than they had thwarted, Ms. Ali calmly replied that the jihadists of course used these wars as propaganda for recruitment, just as they would use any situation for recruitment, since they are in the business of destroying free societies and bringing them under submission to shari’a law, and that no matter what the West did, the jihadists would recruit and terrorize.

One very confused and shaken white-haired gentleman could barely form a question, stammering that he had “great respect” for her but disagreed with almost everything she said. As he rambled on, many of his colleagues began to call at him “What’s your question?” and “No speeches, ask a question!” He finally concluded with a semi-coherent plea along the lines of, “Well, how do we deal with these extremists?”

Ali replied that once you have decided to “deal” with the jihadists, you have legitimized their demands of submission, and that you cannot “deal” with fanatics who wish to destroy your nice free society with bike paths and reusable shopping bags and replace it with a totalitarian theocracy. She went on to object to the vague use of the term “extremists,” asking “Extremists of what?” If we were talking about white supremacists, or radical Marxists or Communists or any other “-ists” that used terrorism and violence to bring about their goals, we would not hesitate to identify the ideas behind their philosophy that drove them to such ends. Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

She deftly fielded a question about the “perversion” of Islam by fanatics by proclaiming that she was more concerned about the perversion of the word “liberalism,” because of the willingness of many Western liberals to accept and excuse some of the most heinous criminal acts committed by practitioners of the Muslim faith, like arranged marriages, spousal abuse, subjugation of women by force, denial of education to females, and female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism and a so-called “respect” for other civilizations. American liberals, she said, appear to be more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than most conservatives are. This led her into a repudiation of multiculturalism, and how, despite some honorable intentions in its origins, it had mutated into a belief system that actually denies access to the freedom and justice guaranteed by the American Constitution by allowing injustice to continue within protected minority communities by not encouraging them to assimilate and become full Americans.

In response to a question about how long America should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, she said it was her hope that the Americans would stay for 50 or 100 years, if that is how long it took to modernize those societies, even while acknowledging that there did not seem to be the political will for such an effort to be sustained.

The best question of the evening came from a young man who simply asked what would be the best way to bring about an “Enlightenment” in the Muslim world. She replied that the best way would be to ask them questions about their religion and cause “cognitive dissonance” among those who blindly follow the violent exhortations of their imams. I actually laughed out loud when she used those words, as the cognitive dissonance occurring at that moment in the Track 16 gallery was practically audible. I could swear I heard the word “What?!?” thudding over and over again in the formerly comfortable brains of those around me.

The only applause of the night (!) signaled the end of the evening, and as I lined up to have my book signed by Ms. Ali, I was struck by how short the line was. Out of the 150 to 200 people I guessed were in attendance, only about 25 or so lined up to greet this remarkable individual. As I made my way down the line, I passed pockets of fervent discussion, and caught fragments here and there. I overheard one rather agitated gentleman say, “I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

In Nomad, Hirsi Ali states unequivocally that Christianity and Islam are definitely not equivalent, if for no other reason than Christianity’s willingness to tolerate questioning and even blasphemy without issuing death sentences, and actually calls for a “strategic alliance” between secular people –atheists like herself, Richard Dawkins, and others –and Christians in order to combat the oppression inherent in an unenlightened, unreconstructed Islam (Nomad, pp. 240-241). If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Well, she was black, so they could not dismiss her as a racist; she had lived in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, The Netherlands and the United States, so they could not call her an ignorant provincial hick; she was an avowed atheist, so they could not call her a Christian bigot on a crusade against peaceful Islam; and she was multi-lingual, articulate, and brilliant, so they couldn’t just call her stupid. All the pejoratives they usually apply to people who disagree with them wouldn’t work, and so they were left to confront her ideas, and those ideas stripped them naked, rent their garments of superiority and condescension into tatters at their feet, and left them angry and confused, whining to each other in the corners of the room, unable to say anything to her face. Their favorite weapons, ad hominem name-calling and sneering condescension, were disarmed.

Ms. Ali, flanked by 3 or 4 pleasant-looking but serious suits, a private Secret Service force necessary to protect her from the religion of peace, signed my book as I stammered out an inadequate “Thank you so much for your courage.” She smiled and said, “Thank you very much.”

Not a very scintillating exchange I know, but as I left the gallery that evening, I realized that the real crux of the matter, and the truly paralyzing aspect for the liberals around me, was simply that — her courage. To the Hollywood community, a community that did not even have the courage to list Theo Van Gogh during the 2005 Oscar ceremony as one of the people in film who had died that year, a woman willing to continue espousing her deep convictions after being threatened with death by the same people who had murdered her colleague was utterly confounding. And for someone like me, a person who writes from behind a mask, not even for fear of death but of the economic retribution I might face from the supposedly tolerant community in which I live and work, the evening I spent in a room with Ayaan Hirsi Ali was all the more humbling.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Hollywood coward

The violent left has attacked conservative activists protesting big government, big spending and big bailout scheme proposed by Congress.  Tea Party activists in Tampa and St. Louis were beaten by left wing activists earlier this year.  Add Greensboro to that list.  This week, a group of local citizens in North Carolina protesting the Financial Reform bill and the Durbin BP Bailout amendment were accosted and then physically attacked by a left-wing activist who blamed George Bush for America’s ills.  Here is the video:

Like a bad cold it can’t shake, the left continues to attempt to blame every ill on George W. Bush.  But as one activists in the video pointed out, its actually one Barack Obama and Senator Dick Durbin who are about to hand a massive check to the very company responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in history.

The Durbin Amendment to the financial reform bill is the latest government policy proposal that will pad BP’s bottom line.  The amendment would create a government imposed price control scheme that would shift billions of dollars away from consumer to retailers (British Petroleum, Exxon, WalMart).  That’s why the Durbin Amendment is supported by the  big retailers like Walmart, Petroleum Marketers Association and other prominent lobbyist groups which are funded, in part, by British Petroleum.

Proponents cynically and falsely claim it would help consumers, but its hard to see many consumers feeling benefited by paying higher prices while mega corporations increase their profits.

Just look at who is pushing this amendment—oil Companies and giant retailers.

Tim Carney is one of the most astute observers of the Washington, DC K Street lobbying business.  He doesn’t fall for the pro-consumer rhetoric of politicians.  He looks behind the curtain of amendments and bills to see who benefits and who is paying the lobbyists to get the job done.  When it comes to British Petroleum Carney has found a trail of support for  big government policies that pad their bottom line. Carney writes, ” While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.”

Which gets us back to the Durbin Amendment being protested in North Carolina.  The Financial Reform bill is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster for our country.  Bailouts will be permanently enshrined into law.  The Federal Reserve will be empowered, not reformed.  Left wing and union activists will be encouraged to interfere with the operations of companies through the proxy access provisions.  The bill’s broad definiation of  ”nonbank financial company” that would mean that many Main Street companies would be hit with regulations, taxation and possibily nationalization by the Federal Rererve.  And of course, ground zero for the financial crisis — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — remain untouched and unchanged by the bill.

None of this seems to bother left wing activists and members of Congress.  Left wing activists are willing to beat conservatives who are speaking out against this monstrosity.  Unfortunately, the real damage will be done to our economy and free market system and will be injured for years to come.

The Obama administration’s response to the Israeli blockade of Gaza has been, to put it charitably, uncertain. Are the Israelis right to try to prevent ships of any kind bound for Gaza from bringing offensive weapons into the Hamas terror state? Gaza is not some remote location. Gaza abuts Israel. Four thousand rockets have been fired by Hamas from Gaza into Israel proper, into civilian areas, into Jewish homes, shops, and houses of worship. Hamas has declared war on Israel. Hamas is dedicated to eradicating “the Zionist entity.” They won’t even name the Jewish state.

After initially proclaiming, chest out, that there would not be “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel’s right of self-defense, the Obama administration began backtracking. Like Annie, unnamed officials began to sing: “The sun will come out tomorrow.” They could hardly admit, after all, that the administration’s Mideast policy is shambolic. (That’s a nice internationalist touch for you. “Shambolic” is Brit slang for chaotic, disorderly.)

What we need is clarity. The Israelis had no choice but to intercept the Turkish-sponsored “flotilla.” What ensued when Israeli commandos repelled onto the deck of a Turkish ferry boat was indeed shambolic. The “peace” activists who crowded the deck set upon the Israeli soldiers with their palm fronds. Or was it olive branches? Try lead pipes.

And the Israeli commandos, those aggressive brutes, fired back. The French would understand very well this aggressive behavior. They have a phrase: “This animal is very mechant (wicked). When you attack it, it defends itself.”

Compare today’s response of daylight not showing between us and our Israeli allies, then peeping through, with the clear, hard determination of President Kennedy when we were threatened by Soviet missiles in Cuba, or, “Cuber,” as our brave young leader pronounced it. Here’s how Kennedy described U.S. actions on 22 October 1962:

To halt this offensive buildup a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948.

Is this not precisely what the Israelis were trying to do with Gaza? Cuba was 90 miles off our shores. Gaza is right there. What were the Israelis attempting to do other than to inspect “all ships of any kind?” Didn’t the U.S. plan to do precisely that with Soviet freighters approaching Cuba? And if one those Soviet ships had decided to defy the U.S. quarantine, we probably did not plan to send in boarding parties. Kennedy probably planned instead to send a shell through their pilot house. The Israelis are being blamed for not sinking the Turkish ferry.

The Israelis allow the “necessities of life” to get through to Gaza. But they join with Arab Egypt in a blockade that attempts to prevent weapons from going in to Gaza. In Gaza, “humanitarian” aid takes the form of ambulances that transport rockets and hospitals that store them.

Vice President Joe Biden warned us of this. He said the world would test our young leader. And he pleaded for patience and understanding when that test came. It would not be immediately apparent that the administration was pursuing the right course, Biden told Democratic party donors in Seattle, just before the `08 election. That’s why their support was especially crucial.

Well, Joe got that part right. It is not immediately clear that this administration’s Mideast policy is on the right course. We are in a military and diplomatic fog that is totally unnecessary. And it has all been brought about by confusion at the top. What we need is a profile in courage, like that shown by the young, untested President John F. Kennedy. What we are hearing is an uncertain trumpet. Who can respond to that?

In today’s Washington Examiner, the always interesting Michael Barone dissects Labor’s big loss in Arkansas:

She wanted to win reelection and knew that card check was political poison in almost entirely non-unionized Arkansas.

Big labor decided to teach her—and all Democratic members of Congress who were quailing at the prospect of voting for card check—a lesson. The lesson would be that, however much a vote for card check would reduce your chances of winning a general election, opposition to card check would result in your defeat in a Democratic primary. Their ready and willing instrument was Bill Halter, whose path to higher office seemed otherwise occluded. At the beginning of March he announced his candidacy and proclaimed himself the champion of the working man. Blanche Lincoln, in agonized response, proclaimed herself the target of outside interests. In a matter of weeks labor unions and moveon.org—originally formed to defend Bill Clinton against impeachment—sent millions to Bill Halter’s campaign. Lincoln, recently elevated to the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture Committee, sponsored a bill to shut off all derivative trading. The Obama White House carefully protected this bill from defeat while the primary and runoff contests were pending, while Bill Clinton campaign gallantly for Lincoln and against his appointee Halter.

The Clinton intervention may have proved decisive. Although the Clintons have left Arkansas, Arkansas voters still have warm feelings toward them, as witnessed by Hillary Clinton’s 70%-26% defeat of Barack Obama in the 2008 Arkansas Democratic presidential primary—the biggest percentage win in her campaign. Lincoln won the runoff by a 52%-48% margin—hardly inspiring but a whole lot better than a defeat.

It’s a huge defeat for the unions. White House political operatives are already complaining, as Ben Smith notes in Politico, that “Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise,” [a senior White House] official said. “If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November.” But the unions are not just interested in maintaining Democratic majorities. They’re interested in making sure that all Democratic incumbents will vote when bidden for card check. The message they wanted to send to Blanche Lincoln, and to all other Democrats, was: the minute you announce against card check, your career is over. Even in a state like Arkansas, with few union members and with all the major employers solid opponents of unionization, we can defeat you in the Democratic primary. You may very well fear likely defeat in the general election if your support card check. But we can promise you certain defeat in the primary if you oppose it. And to national Democratic strategists they could say this: Lincoln was going to lose the general election in any case. We just made her path to defeat more unpleasant.

Bill Halter, who remained coy about his own position on card check, was the willing accomplice in this strategy. With not a lot to lose (the lieutenant governorship? give me a break; it was a nice office for a billionaire like Winthrop Rockefeller but doesn’t offer much to anyone else) and something to gain (maybe John Boozman would self-destruct in the general election for the Senate), this may have looked to him like a low-risk candidacy. His willingness to be the accomplice of the big labor unions might foreclose any future electoral career in Arkansas (although Bill Clinton’s rebounds after adversity might give any Arkansas Rhode Scholar hope for recovery). But there are other ways the big unions can help you advance.

Blanche Lincoln’s (narrow) victory leaves the unions’ strategy in ruins. They can’t credibly threaten any Democratic incumbent who opposes card check with political defeat. Some, in states less anti-union than Arkansas, might be vulnerable to a challenge like Halter’s; but others won’t. And in some states or districts there won’t be an opportunistic challenger like Halter willing to go along with the strategy and well enough established to be a serious primary challenger. Give the unions credit for daring, and for putting their money (or the money of their members) on the line. They’re playing for high stakes—for the ability to plunder the private sector for dues money as they have successfully plundered the public sector (i.e., taxpayers) for dues money in states with strong public employee unions like New York, New Jersey and California. They just came up a little bit short.

Read the whole thing here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

The President of the United States is looking for an ass to kick.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar,” he said Monday, “we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

He is so embarrassing. What president talks with such false braggadocio? Would a Republican dog catcher get away with such vulgar invective? He is a disaster, and he lashes out when he is called out on any of his too-numerous-to-recount-here failures.

Bush was eviscerated, crucified for showing more competence in his pinky toenail during Katrina than Obama has demonstrated in the whole of this short, painful presidency. The media’s silence on his fumbling and stumbling is absolutely corrupt. If anyone should be impeached, it ought to be those useful idiots and fellow travelers. It is now a 24-hour bash BP news cycle.

Sarah Palin said:

50 days in, and we’ve just learned another shocking revelation concerning the Obama administration’s response to the Gulf oil spill. In an interview aired this morning, President Obama admitted that he hasn’t met with or spoken directly to BP’s CEO Tony Hayward. His reasoning: “Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”

Sounds as if Obama doesn’t have much confidence in BP. He is right about that, since BP has been responsible for a large number of accidents in the last few years. The Washington Post reports this: “BP has had more high-profile accidents than any other company in recent years. And now, with the disaster in the gulf, independent experts say the pervasiveness of the company’s problems, in multiple locales and different types of facilities, is striking.”

But Obama’s suspicion of the company is newly minted. Palin points this out:

And yet just 10 days prior to the explosion, the Obama administration’s regulators gave the oil rig a pass, and last year the Obama administration granted BP a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemption for its drilling operation.

And it was not Tony Hayward, it was Obama who did nothing for days, weeks, while whole swaths of coast were destroyed. He used the opportunity to kill all offshore drilling. So many bright, creative ideas were tossed aside, much the way Obama has tossed aside all things redolent of capitalism, American exceptionalism and American sovereignty. Such incompetence is indicative of complete stupidity and head-in-posterior paralysis, or something more sinister and destructive. Either way, it ain’t good.

I think it’s the former … he’s a dolt. But he is also a true believer in hard-left socialism. And in any crisis, the policies of the left always fail, without exception because you need the producers, the object of the left’s destruction.

Predictably, Obama is going after the producers: not even an hour after the media went into vacation mode for the Memorial Day weekend, so that what would be done would be largely out of sight, the House of Representatives votes 215 to 204 to increase the tax on every oil barrel from 8 cents to 34 cents.

This will cause across-the-board inflation, as everyone tries to make everyone else absorb the cost of the increase. It is a new impossible burden placed on American businesses.

Where is all the money they have already sucked out of the guts of this great nation? Where the hell is all our dough?

They are robbing us blind. And Obama is blaming George W. Bush for the spill. Got that?

Obama has also seized the opportunity of this disaster to say no to new oil drilling. Nothing like using a crisis to aid and abet the global jihad, which is financed by our oil revenue, and to hold America hostage to jihad oil-producing countries.

He also sent SWAT teams to the Gulf “to inspect all platforms and rigs.” SWAT teams? Was the oil leak a terrorist attack? Or is this just more sabotage to kill any oil drilling and exploration in the United States?

The ass that Barack Obama should be kicking is his own.

So. The White House sent EPA chief Lisa Jackson over to HuffPo to slam (smear?) the Murkowski resolution set to be voted on in the Senate on Thursday, which is designed to block a Power Grab by EPA and thereby to maintain our Constitution’s separation of powers.

The White House then followed this by threatening to veto the resolution if it passes.

In both cases, Team Obama tie S.J.Res. 26 to the Gulf oil spill and argue that, by blocking EPA’s claimed authority to regulate greenhouse gases, this exercise of the Congressional Review Act would cruelly block the administration’s diligent and dedicated campaign to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce the risk of such spills in the future.

Huh? Far from sounding familiar (at least, before this newest revision of the reasons for the “global warming” agenda was rolled out last week), this should sound somewhat newfangled.

In fact here we see that the “global warming” agenda — that had already morphed into a “climate change” agenda before it was an energy tax to create new jobs (because we all know that’s what tax increases do, silly) — is actually aimed at stopping oil spills. And we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, Winston.

What we have now is a pristine case study of there being no good reason for an agenda, as proved by the fact that the reason for the agenda (read: excuse) keeps changing.

In what was surely little more than an exercise in cynicism, I performed a quick search to see just how deeply embedded are these real reasons for what has for years been a “global warming” regulatory agenda. It turns out that EPA forgot to cite them as the reason for, or even related to, its “Endangerment Finding” (that the Murkowski Resolution would block).

OK. To be generous beyond a fault, let’s say they cited these real reasons one half of one time. In 52 deathless pages of background and “global warming” hysteria.

Go ahead. Perform a word-search yourself. You’ll see the following:

“warming” — 82 invocations

“temperature” — 117 invocations

“climate change” — 259 invocations

“dependence” (or “independence”; or “depend” in any relevant way) — 0

“spill” — 0

“drill” or “drilling” — 0

“oil” — 1 relevant usage, but which, well… refers to a different rulemaking altogether, as part of EPA’s lengthy discourse of the regulatory context (see very bottom of page 5 of 52).

“automobile” — see “oil”, above; the same discussion dragged “fuel economy” into the mix.

It turns out that at the time, in promoting the “Finding” that the Murkowski resolution seeks to block, the administration actually forgot to make what are now apparently its marquee arguments for the thing. At least, to listen to their keening in opposition to the measure.

Quite a week these people are having. Quite a week. Stay classy, Team Obama.

Though the five months between now and Election Day might seem like an eternity in politics, at least one thing is clear: Top tier Republican candidates are solidifying the playing field and ensuring that the GOP will challenge more than enough Democrat-held seats to put the majority in play.

As we enter the height of the campaign season, both the field of candidates and the issues at hand are becoming crystal clear and they all bode poorly for Democrats. A significant number of Republican candidates in targeted races have cleared the final hurdle before the general election. They are now ready to dedicate the next five months to holding their opponents accountable for an agenda that has been entirely ineffective in stemming the tide of a devastating recession and, in the eyes of many voters, has actually made the situation worse. Combined with a political environment that grows more turbulent by the day, Democrats will be on the run from now until November.

GOP CANDIDATES ALREADY CAMPAIGNING FOR NOVEMBER

With 50 percent of the country’s primaries now behind us, top-tier Republican candidates are already playing offense against Democrats in over 40 seats – a larger number than we need to win back the majority. These top-tier candidates have either already won their primaries or are on pace to win the Republican nomination, which will allow them to focus on their path to victory with an eye toward November.

Contrary to assertions that recent contested primaries have left the GOP divided, we need to look no further than last night’s results to see that strong candidates have emerged to give Republicans the best possible chance for victory in November. By-and-large the primary contests that have taken place have served to strengthen the respective candidacies of those like Robert Hurt and Scott Rigell in Virginia. In these districts and countless others, Republicans and independents are quickly coalescing around GOP nominees in a concerted effort to send Democrats a message on Election Day.

From a district-by-district standpoint, the numbers are stacked against the Democrats. The Cook Political Report has consistently predicted “a very tough political environment for Democrats come November, with severe losses likely, significantly greater than the average first-term midterm loss of 16 seats in the House.”

REPUBLICANS SURGE ON THE GENERIC BALLOT

An abundance of quality Republican candidates makes life difficult enough for establishment Democrats, but recent polling is even more troubling for the majority party. A survey released last week by the Gallup Organization revealed the best showing for Republicans on the generic ballot in the history of the polling firm.  Republicans climbed to a 49%-43% lead over Democrats while also maintaining a 15-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. According to Real Clear Politics, this indicates an even wider advantage for Republicans once likely voters are taken into consideration.

Yesterday’s Gallup Poll builds on the anti-establishment mood that has been developing for well over a year. Sixty percent of registered voters believe that it’s time for new blood in Congress, representing one of the highest measures of anti-incumbency since Gallup began tracking the question. For a party that controls every lever of government in Washington, this predominant national mood will present serious problems.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN FOR JOB GROWTH

It’s not difficult to see why the American people are ready to give up on this Democrat majority. From day one, it’s been clear that the aim of their legislative agenda has been advancing political goals rather than presenting a plan to stem an ongoing economic crisis and put the country back on track. The failed stimulus, the National Energy Tax, the government takeover of healthcare, and a litany of unnecessary and wasteful spending bills all present a convincing case: This Democrat majority is either committed to forcing through an agenda that stands in the way of economic recovery or simply is not capable of creating legislation that eases the burden of spending and debt on the economy and puts Americans back to work.

Now, it looks as though House Democrats will refuse to pass a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Instead of creating a plan that cuts government spending, decreases the size of the federal government, and restores fiscal responsibility, Democrats have decided that they will continue spending at will – and they refuse to give the American people a blueprint on how their taxpayer money will be used. Despite the prevailing notion that the viability of the Democrat majority depends on the country’s economic outlook over the coming months, the Democrats’ election strategy appears to be pursuing business as usual and hoping for the best.

AN UNPRECEDENTED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

Adding to the laundry list of challenges facing Democrats as they attempt to hold onto the House of Representatives is a developing political reality that they refuse to accept. As they push forward with their unpopular agenda and runaway spending spree, Americans are left dealing with the consequences of a faltering economy. The national unemployment rate now stands at 9.7 percent, a figure never before seen in an election year. In fact, according to nonpartisan election analyst Charlie Cook, unemployment has never been above nine percent for an entire election year since the Great Depression.

The troubling mix of anti-incumbent attitudes, a toxic political environment, and a faltering economy means that Democrats are facing a monumental challenge, the severity of which may very well continue growing throughout the summer. Combined with a field of aggressive Republican candidates who will be able to spend the next several months holding the majority accountable for its reckless political agenda, Democrats will be playing heavy defense from now through Election Day. With five months to go, Republicans have established a foundation of candidates that will only grow as we continue our fight to retire Nancy Pelosi and take back the majority in the House of Representatives.

UNBELIEVABLE! How’s this for HOPE AND CHANGE?

Tar blobs began washing up on Florida’s white sand beaches near Pensacola this past weekend. Crude oil has already been reported along barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi, and has impacted about 125 miles of Louisiana coastline.

It didn’t have to be this way.

(Reuters)
There are miles of floating oil containment boom in warehouse right now and the manufacturer Packgen says it can make lots more on short notice.
There’s just one problem… No one will come get it.

Maine Governor Baldacci visits Packgen to see the manufacturing of Oil Containment Booms, as well as lend his support to the people of Packgen and the Gulf Coast.

Gregory Sullivan at Pajamas Media reported, via Instapundit:

John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.

He’s already had a representative from BP visit his factory and inspect his product. The governor of Maine, John Baldacci, visited the facility and made a video plea to no one in particular to close the deal. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins wrote a letter on May 21 to the secretary of the Interior, the administrator of NOAA, and the commandant of the Coast Guard to alert them to the existence of Packgen, their supply of boom, and their demonstrated capacity to make more. I have no idea if those are the correct persons and agencies to notify about the manufacturing capacity and the availability of boom. One wonders if the senators know.

While it is not easy to clean up an ocean oil spill, it is not a complicated procedure. In the open ocean, chemicals can be sprayed on slicks to try to disperse them. For the most part, oil floats, so it can sometimes be ignited and burned to lessen the amount that might reach a more sensitive area than the middle of an ocean. Out in open water, you can use booms (temporary floating barriers), but the wind and wave action makes it pretty difficult to place them and keep them there. When you get in closer to shore, where the oil is likely to do the most damage but the water is generally calmer, the best way to deal with it is to place flexible booms in the water, against which the oil will collect, and then run skimmers, a sort of pump that vacuums up and separates the oil from the water. Then you mop up what makes it to the shore as best you can.

…Oil collected against a boom is fairly easy to process and recycle. Sorbent booms, designed to collect oil at the water’s edge, are made from materials that absorb oil but not water — unlike hair. Oil full of hair or straw lapping against a shoreline is a HazMat nightmare. And sorbent boom is not in short supply anyway.

…Packgen’s main business is not making oil boom. They make specialty packaging materials for shipping and storing environmentally sensitive materials. But when Packgen’s president, John Lapoint, saw the BP oil spill in the news, he understood right away that to have any hope of containing the oil drifting towards the shoreline, lots of floating boom would be necessary.

It didn’t have to be this way. Our southern shores could have been spared.

If Barack Obama really wants to find some ass to kick. It may be his own.

Is anyone else reminded of this photo?

Click to Play

From Palo Alto, Oaklahoma City, Washington DC, the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Instanbul Turkey, to The Republic of Georgia, we go totally global this week. But enough about us, here’s our new and improved and by popular request Ricochet podcast index:
0:00 to 9:45  Peter and Rob chat
9:45 to 21:23  Mickey Kaus on his quixotic run for US Senate in California as he battles the unions and pension funds.
22:50 to 37:10  Matt Continetti on his travels to the Republic of Georgia.
39:50 to 1:06:34    Claire Berlinski from and on life in Istanbul. Key phrase: 7 cats.
1:09:30 to 1:33:33  Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour talks about oil in the gulf and catfish in Central Park.
1:33:35 to End    Wrap Up

Click to Play

From Palo Alto, Oaklahoma City, Washington DC, the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Instanbul Turkey, to The Republic of Georgia, we go totally global this week. But enough about us, here’s our new and improved and by popular request Ricochet podcast index:
0:00 to 9:45  Peter and Rob chat
9:45 to 21:23  Mickey Kaus on his quixotic run for US Senate in California as he battles the unions and pension funds.
22:50 to 37:10  Matt Continetti on his travels to the Republic of Georgia.
39:50 to 1:06:34    Claire Berlinski from and on life in Istanbul. Key phrase: 7 cats.
1:09:30 to 1:33:33  Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour talks about oil in the gulf and catfish in Central Park.
1:33:35 to End    Wrap Up

Click to Play

From Palo Alto, Oaklahoma City, Washington DC, the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, Instanbul Turkey, to The Republic of Georgia, we go totally global this week. But enough about us, here’s our new and improved and by popular request Ricochet podcast index:
0:00 to 9:45  Peter and Rob chat
9:45 to 21:23  Mickey Kaus on his quixotic run for US Senate in California as he battles the unions and pension funds.
22:50 to 37:10  Matt Continetti on his travels to the Republic of Georgia.
39:50 to 1:06:34    Claire Berlinski from and on life in Istanbul. Key phrase: 7 cats.
1:09:30 to 1:33:33  Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour talks about oil in the gulf and catfish in Central Park.
1:33:35 to End    Wrap Up

Remember all of those bold statements that the so called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP), the Bailout of Wall Street Bill, was a one time deal and our federal government should and will never do it again.  Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified in January of this year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Many Americans look at what happened with AIG, and the rest of the financial rescue, and simply ask:  Why was it necessary?  Why was it fair for the government to take taxpayer money and put it into an institution that had mismanaged itself to the edge of collapse?  The answer is that it was not fair, and it was not something our government should ever have to do.  But those Americans, those families and business owners who played by the rules and played no role in giving rise to this recession, should understand that if the government had failed to act, that failure would have unleashed substantially greater damage upon them.

If TARP “was not fair” and not “something our government should ever have to do,” then why is Congress trying to impose the TARP model on small business?  Congress will consider legislation this week to establish TARP, Jr. for small businesses to be administered and run by none other than Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. The House is considering H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act that provides “temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments to eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses.”

The legislation creates a federally run new bureaucracy called the “Small Business Lending Fund. ”  To qualify a financial institution has to have less than $10 billion in assets and the new creation would have up to $30 billion in new investment authority.  This allegedly temporary program is set up “without further appropriation of fiscal year limitation,” i.e. not temporary, to purchase “preferred stock and other financial instruments” from small business as a means to infuse money into local banks with the condition that they lend to failing small business.  Local banks will be lending in exchange for equity small business, therefore these banks will be using federal monies to buy equity in companies.  This is an idea born from socialism and one that will harm the free market for small business, because failure will be rewarded by federal subsidies while success will be punished.

The bill also creates a “Small Business Credit Initiative” with $2 billion of your tax dollars to be given to states that have created programs to provide funds to banks to bailout small businesses in trouble.  This would provide an incentive for states to adopt the crony capitalism programs of the federal government exemplified by the federal takeover of General Motors and the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Setting up a system with private profits, yet socialized losses, will diminish capitalism and the American free market system.  This legislation, TARP, Jr., extends the failed and free market offensive TARP model to small business.  Considering that the original TARP program was “not fair, and it was not something our government should ever have to do,” Congress might want to heed the advice of Secretary Geithner of January 2010 and pause before creeping a few more steps toward American socialism.

On April 22nd we published an article entitled IndyMac Attack: Did Schumer, Paulson, Soros, and the CRL Kill the Bank and Profit From Its Collapse? We summarized the story as follows:

At the end of 2007, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson invested $15 million in the leftist non-profit, Center for Responsible Lending, their largest single donation ever. Around the same time, Paulson and his employees contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed, at the time, by Sen. Chuck Schumer. Roughly six months later, CRL and Sen. Schumer both launched a highly public attack on the California-based mortgage lender, Indymac. The lender failed, wiping out the investment of thousands of people. Roughly six months after that, John Paulson, in partnership with George Soros, bought up the remnants of Indymac for pennies on the dollar.

…a top executive of CRL when this deal went down, Eric Stein, is now working at the Treasury Department, heading up the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Mr. Stein will be the chief federal official designing regulations to protect consumers. Right.

At the time, we asked if this could all be coincidence.  Today, we are getting closer to answering this question.

As reported by hedge fund blog AbsoluteReturn+Alpha, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is probing John Paulson on his relationship with the Center for Responsible Lending.

In a May 26th letter to Mr. Paulson, Issa notes that “While Paulson & Co. has not been named in the SEC’s suit [against Goldman Sachs & Co.], it donated $15 million to the Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that was pushing for risky ‘affordable’ mortgage lending while Paulson & Co. was simultaneously betting on a collapse in the housing market.”

This $15 million donation contributed to a 250% increase in revenue for the CRL in 2007, and helped enable the CRL to increase its lobbying activities by 220% over the following year.

As such, Issa continues:

The American people have a right to know the true impact of Paulson & Co.’s donation to CRL on CRL’s ability to push for the kind of mortgages that precipitated the financial crisis.  In addition, it is unclear whether Paulson & Co. leveraged its financial relationship with CRL in order to further its strategy to profit from the collapse of the housing market CRL helped create, whether through receipt of information about specific at-risk mortgages to which Self-Help and its affiliates were privy or through CRL’s lobbying activities.

According to Issa’s letter, the House Committee is requesting a variety of documents including all records and communications between Paulson & Co., and the following organizations since January 1, 2005:

a. Center for Community Self-Help;

b. Center for Responsible Lending;

c. Self-Help Credit Union;

d. Self-Help Federal Credit Union;

e. Self-Help Ventures Fund;

f. World Savings Bank;

g. Golden West Financial;

h. Mr. Eric Stein;

i. Mr. Martin Eakes;

j. Mr. Herbert Sandler;

k. Mrs. Marion Sandler.

Given the information that will be obtained from this probe, it appears that Congress is at the tip of the iceberg of a major case against crony capitalism; a case that may well implicate the head of the soon to be created CFPA in Eric Stein, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), George Soros and all of the private equity investors in the failed IndyMac Bank.

The deadline for Mr. Paulson to respond to the probe is tomorrow.  Stay tuned.

Since the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up on April 20, President Obama has been rightly and roundly criticized for his lethargic, passionless, and ineffective response to the crisis.  We’re now into the 7th week of this catastrophe, and the president still looks weirdly disengaged: not only that he either doesn’t know what he’s doing or isn’t that interested in the crisis.  It’s that he looks like he doesn’t belong in the job.  He looks like a little boy stomping around the house wearing his father’s suit and shoes.

Stung by the attacks on his competence, character, and emotionlessness, Obama contrived some “passion” the other day.  In an interview with the “Today” show, he said, “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.”

Oh no!  Anything but a Bama ass-kickin’!  The terror of that prospect I’m sure has BP shaking in its boots. (By the way, running college seminars is ALL the Bama knows how to do, so he probably should be doing that.  Maybe some college senior somewhere has a Descartes-inspired idea on how to plug the damn hole.)

Rule #1 in politics:  Do not try to be something that you’re not.When President George H. W. Bush was running behind Bill Clinton in 1992, he went into a grocery store and pretended to love beef jerky.  You know: to demonstrate that he was just a regular guy.  The problem was: he wasn’t just a regular guy.  He was Andover and Yale and the Eastern establishment.  His father had been a U.S. Senator.  Bush didn’t even know what beef jerky was, for crying out loud.  He lost the election.

Obama trying to show he’s an angry avenger when he’s essentially an automaton isn’t going to work either.  He is Carlton Banks, not Suge Knight. He’s a navel-gazing, community organizing law professor, not a put-a-cap-in-your-ass gangbanger.  He should stop with the phony theatrics
and be who he is. The problem with that is that he’s a community organizing law professor, not an American president.

President Obama surely didn’t intend it, but he deserves some credit for last year’s 7.4 percent drop in murder rates. His election caused gun sales to soar, and crime rates to plummet.

While gun sales started notably rising in October 2008, sales really soared immediately after Mr. Obama won the presidential race. 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than bought them in November 2007, that’s over a 40 percent increase in sales. By comparison, the change from November 2006 to November 2007 was only about 35,000. Over the last decade, the average year-to-year increase in monthly sales was only 21,000.

The increase in sales continued well beyond November 2008. From November 2008 to October 2009, almost 2.5 million more people bought guns in the 12 months after the election than in the preceding 12 months. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, doesn’t tell us how many guns each person bought just the number of people who bought them. Most likely though, gun sales rose by more than the number of people who purchased them.

At the same time gun sales were soaring, there was an unusually large drop in murder rates. The 7.4 percent drop in the murder rate was the largest drop in murder rates since the 1999. For those who don’t remember, 1999, when President Bill Clinton and Columbine occurred, was another time when gun sales soared. With people such as Elena Kagan serving as Mr. Clinton’s deputy domestic policy adviser were pushing hard for more gun control, Americans were worried that more gun bans were coming. And in response gun sales soared.

Just as higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, or the more frequent use of the death penalty reduce crime, so does letting victims defend themselves with guns. More certain or greater penalties make it more risky for criminals to commit crime. Victims who can defend themselves can also make committing crime more dangerous and deter criminals.

Americans living in the District of Columbia and Chicago have seen this phenomenon themselves. After the ban went into effect in both cities, murder rates rose dramatically. After the Supreme Court threw out DC’s ban and gunlock laws in 2008, the District’s murder rates plunged by 25 percent in 2009. Indeed, my research in the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that every place in the world that we have crime data for has seen murder rates climb when guns were banned.

If Mr. Obama really understood that letting law-abiding citizens defend themselves reduces crime, it is unlikely that gun sales would have had to increase. Yet, if the Supreme Court strikes down the Chicago gun ban this month, Americans may get to see yet again that more guns mean less crime.

The always informative RealClearPolitics looks at other races to watch in today’s Super Tuesday primaries:

Today’s elections feature top-tier Senate and gubernatorial races in California and Nevada, as well as a Senate runoff in Arkansas and competitive GOP primary in the South Carolina governor’s race. Those are just the highlights of a full slate of primaries, but there are a handful of intriguing races that will likely fly under the radar as the results pour in tonight.

Here are five races that may not make major newspaper headlines but are certainly ones to keep an eye on:

Iowa’s 3rd District GOP Primary

The Iowa Republican Party is preparing to hold a July 10 convention to decide the nominee in the 3rd district, where no one in Tuesday’s crowded primary is expected to meet the 35 percent threshold to win the nomination. The GOP sees the district has a potential pick-up opportunity, as Democrat Leonard Boswell runs for an eighth term in office.

One could also be necessary in the 2nd district, where four Republicans are vying to take on second-term Democrat Dave Loebsack.

Conventions are in many ways much different animals than primaries. As state GOP Chairman Matt Strawn said last week on local TV, “It’s not the kind of campaign that’s waged on the airwaves, but literally hand to hand and house to house.” The winner will be decided by 422 previously elected district delegates.

By most accounts, the three leading candidates in the 3rd district are aviation security consultant Dave Funk, financial adviser and former Iowa State wrestling coach Jim Gibbons and state Sen. Brad Zaun.

The United States’ economic troubles are mounting and already prodigious.  While it’s true that Obama inherited a mess – created by government – he has made our economic problems progressively (pun intended) worse.  Amidst that failure, however, Obama has accomplished something that is simply hard to believe.

Before I get to that stunning achievement, it worthy to consider just how bad the employment picture really is.  Since the Great Depression, unemployment has reached this neighborhood of 10%, i.e. nearly double the historic average, only one other time.  That was during the early 1980’s.  That unemployment was brought on by the combined bad economic (read: “political”) decisions of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.  All combined, they produced high unemployment and high inflation in addition to new terminology – stagflation.  In order to wring inflation out of the system, President Reagan’s economic remedy eventually produced a record 92 months of growth but started with unemployment above 10%.  In fact, unemployment was above 9% for 18 months before steadily dropping to 5.3% at the end of Reagan’s two terms.

When Obama got his so-called stimulus package (read: record pork-barrel bill) passed, he promised that unemployment would not rise above 8%.  It has now been above 8% for 15 months – it has been above 9% for 12 months.  Obama openly admits that unemployment will be a problem for a long time to come.  He could not be more right considering that he is proposing a series of huge tax hikes, i.e. the expiration of the Bush tax cuts along with his cap and trade energy plan which is more rightly named “cap and tax.” Beyond that, Obama’s health care legislation has imposed huge regulatory costs on American business – costs which come at the expense of American jobs.  Those are some of the reasons there is so much talk of the possibility of a double-dip recession. Quite frankly, an unemployment rate above 8%, if not 9%, for another 24 months is a real possibility.

Unemployment that is nearly double the national average, and at a 30 year high with no end in sight, is incredibly bad and of deep concern to many Americans.

As bad as that is, however, Obama has accomplished something literally stunning.

According to Gallup polling released the first week of June – unemployment ranks only 4^th among Americans biggest concerns.  Indeed, Americans top 4 concerns are:

4) Unemployment

3) Healthcare costs (according to Rasmussen 60% want the healthcare bill repealed).

And a tie at the top between:

1) Federal Debt (Obama has added $6.5 trillion beyond what he can possibly claim her inherited – that’s $163,000 for every taxpaying family), and

1) Terrorism (attacks on American soil are way up courtesy of his weak foreign policy).

It is simply unbelievable that Obama has made Americans so worried about healthcare, terrorism and the federal debt that they would rank historically high unemployment 4^th.    That tells a very sorry tale about the State of the Union, and just think, only 2 ½ years left for him to “achieve” even more.

When Washington opened the doors to taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street firms they set off a modern day gold rush for lobbyists, corporations and unions looking to get their piece of the pie. The car companies lined up for their handout. Big labor and their failed underfunded pensions are angling for bailouts. And now major retailers like Walmart and oil companies like British Petroleum are lobbying for their government created wealth transfer payment. Welcome to the world of the Durbin Amendment to the Financial Reform bill — a new bailout attached to a giant bailout bill.

A coalition of lobbyists for oil and gas companies, convenience stores, giant retailers and petroleum marketers have conned Senators into supporting a provision that is tantamount to a bailout for perfectly profitable multi-billion corporations.

There was a time when a business was looking to cut costs, they would tighten their belt and make changes within their company to ensure profitability. No longer. Now companies hire Washington lobbyists who push schemes to shift costs from the company to other companies, or worse yet, the consumer. That is exactly what the Durbin amendment to the Financial Reform bill is all about.

When giant corporations like BP and Walmart accept payment via credit cards, they pay a fee for processing services. The Durbin amendment empowers the Fed to cap the cost of those services to these industry giants. Proponents of the so-called “swipe fee” amendment have cynically argued that this amendment would somehow benefit consumers. But in reality, the Durbin amendment is a lobbyist-written, government imposed price control program that will shift the cost of accepting credit cards from mega corporations to consumers.

Writing in the Washington Times, Todd Zywicki explains:

This means, inevitably, costs will be shifted from merchants to consumers. Consumers will see new fees or greater restrictions on their use of debit cards – reminiscent of times past when banks imposed a limit on the number of free debit transactions a consumer was permitted in a given month, after which consumers had to pay a fee. Consumers can also expect to see deterioration in customer service and investments in security, and efforts by banks to cross-subsidize debit card transactions through other bank services. Issuers may also try to steer consumers toward greater use of credit cards, whose interchange fees – although generally higher than those on debit cards – are not regulated by the Durbin amendment. Moreover, while the Durbin amendment excludes banks with assets of less than $10 billion from its price control regulations, payment card networks will be forced by competitive pressures to equalize its interchange fees across its various issuers, thereby nullifying this purported safe harbor for small issuers and their customers.

Having successfully duped the Senate in to passing the Amendment, the major beneficiaries are pushing the conference committee to accept the Durbin amendment. BP, Conoco, Exxon, WalMart and Best Buy are all working the Hill to ensure the costs of processing credit cards are moved from their books to the books of others. But rather than using the marketplace to set the price, they are asking government to do it. Passing the Durbin amendment into law would be the shameful equivalent of handing these mega corporations a check.