What Democrats Think of the American People

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 16 Mar 2010 | 9:40 pm MDT

Democratic leaders in the House are apparently moving towards the "Slaughter Solution" of avoiding a direct vote on the health care legislation and instead passing the Senate health care bill by voting to "deem" it passed. As they do so, they keep reassuring the media--and each other--that the American people don't care.

Why Be Like Sweden?

→ Power Line | 16 Mar 2010 | 9:16 pm MDT

Our Europhile President and many Congressional Democrats aspire to make the United States more like Sweden. More like our outdated image of Sweden, anyway; the real Sweden is undergoing something of a free market renaissance. In this video from the Center For Freedom and Prosperity, a Swedish economics student--OK, some stereotypes are still valid--explains the lessons we can learn from that country's economic history:

The Democrats seem to be the last ones to realize that the ideology they are trying to impose on us has been thoroughly discredited.

Obama's self-defeating crusade against Israel

→ Power Line | 16 Mar 2010 | 8:46 pm MDT

President Obama is attempting to use a mis-timed announcement by Israel of its intention to build housing units in East Jerusulem as a means of pressuring Israel into making major concessions to the Palestinian Authority. Israel has apologized for the timing of its announcement, but the White House is demanding much more in the way of atonement.

Obama's ploy has drawn strong criticism from mainstream American Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC -- outfits that certainly don't make it a habit to speak harshly about the American government. And now, the White House's approach has been criticized by the editors of the Washington Post.

The Post comes at the issue based not on the equities, but on its standard for assessing nearly all matters pertaining to Israel -- whether Obama's conduct is advancing or retarding the "peace process." To me this a warped perspective because the peace process is an illusion.

But the Post's perspective is an important one because it purports to reject what Obama is doing even on its own terms (the Post assumes that Obama is trying to advance the cause of peace, not simply letting off steam after a tough year by venting against a country he can't stand; I'm not so sure). If Obama's actions fail to garner support even from those who would like Israel to do at least some of what Obama is demanding -- and from an institution like the Post that is more than willing to criticize Israel -- then the administration has little hope of winning over mainstream Israelis and Americans for its crusade against the Netanyahu government. And without such support, that crusade is likely to be as unsuccessful this year as it was early last year when Obama and Hillary Clinton attempted to browbeat Israel into making concessions.

In fact, it is the lesson from last year that forms the basis for the Post's criticism of the administration. The editors write:

Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces. Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels -- as would any other Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself.

Only this time, Netanyahu may not be quite as willing to bail Obama out as he was before.

The Post continues:

A larger question concerns Mr. Obama's quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don't always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama's poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits. The president is perceived by many Israelis as making unprecedented demands on their government while overlooking the intransigence of Palestinian and Arab leaders. If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the opposite of what he intends.

It's impossible to see how Obama's petulent, opportunist conduct is consistent with any other image.

This beats watching CNN at the gym

→ Maggie's Farm | 16 Mar 2010 | 6:34 pm MDT

A map-equipped exercise machine can reenact any hike on Earth.

Holder: Treat bin Laden like Charles Manson

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 16 Mar 2010 | 6:03 pm MDT

Today on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Eric Holder essentially said that Osama bin Laden should have the same rights afforded to Charles Manson:

What Kucinich Will Have to Walk Back if He Flip Flops

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 16 Mar 2010 | 5:35 pm MDT

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is holding a press conference at 10 a.m. tomorrow to announce his vote on the health care bill. Kucinich voted "no" on the House bill in November. So it seems very likely that he's going to flip his vote to "yes"--Kucinich wouldn't rebuke Obama so publicly, would he?

Is That A Threat Or A Promise?

→ Power Line | 16 Mar 2010 | 4:55 pm MDT

Barack Obama says he won't campaign for any Democrats who vote against the government medicine bill. Somehow, I don't think that's going to have the intended effect.

HCR Countdown: Rep. Michael Burgess on Bipartisanship and Transparency

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 16 Mar 2010 | 4:24 pm MDT

Rep. Michael Burgess couldn't believe his ears. He'd just been read President Obama's words in Strongville, Ohio, yesterday. At a campaign-style rally, the president had said that "We’ve ended up with a proposal that incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans."

Dodd vs. Hedge Funds

→ The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog | 16 Mar 2010 | 3:58 pm MDT

The Dodd financial reform bill currently making its way through the banking committee has a number of shortcomings, including the proposed regulation of hedge funds, which should trouble pro-market types and the left wing.

In the summary (pdf) of the bill, Dodd suggests that one of the benefits of the measure is that it

Closes Loopholes in Regulation: Eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated - including loopholes for over-the-counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.

Two of these items stand out as somewhat unrelated to our recent financial crisis: payday lenders and hedge funds. Payday loans are a separate conversation. But the attack on hedge funds is mostly spurious.

A hedge fund is neither the product of a loophole nor an "abusive practice." The Investment Company Act of 1940 made the exception that a fund investing on behalf of fewer than 100 clients -- hedge funds -- need not face the same regulations as a bank that serves huge numbers of small depositors, which seems eminently reasonable. And hedge funds are widely acknowledged as having managed risk and abuse better than heavily-regulated banks in the financial panic.

So why single out hedge funds, among many other kinds of financial entities, for increased regulation?

The answer seems to be pure populism. In the popular imagination, hedge funds=greed, so they're getting heavier regulations. Senate Democrats are throwing their base a bone (it's worth mentioning that similar, more restrictive provisions were in the House version of the bill and in the administration's plan).

The Democratic base should throw that bone right back at Dodd, though, because the bill is written to avoid having the advertised effect. That is, it's written up to include loopholes to allow hedge funds to continue whatever risky or abusive practices they've engaged in previously. The key loophole is that there is no real common definition of a hedge fund. The only concrete distinguishing feature of a hedge fund is that it has under 100 owners. Usually a hedge fund entails some combination of a long/short strategy and leverage, but not necessarily. There is no bright line dividing what are referred to as hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds -- they are legally similar firms distinguished mostly by different business models . Yet Dodd would attempt to "close loopholes" on hedge funds without affecting private equity or venture capital firms. How? From the text (pages 377-378, pdf):

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall issue final rules to define the term ‘venture capital fund' for purposes of this subsection....   Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall issue final rules... to define the term ‘private equity fund' for purposes of this subsection.'

In other words, the Democrats would pass the bill, satisfying the left-wing's resentment of Wall Street fat cats, and then give hedge fund managers six months either to lobby for very wide definitions of venture capital and private equity or to make whatever small organizational changes are necessary to get away with calling their firms venture capital or private equity instead of hedge funds.

Where’s Campbell and DeVore? Fiorina is clear.

→ Maggie's Farm | 16 Mar 2010 | 3:47 pm MDT

Aside from waiting, and waiting, for Barbara Boxer – a usual friend of Israel – to speak out in its defense, I’ve been waiting for the Republican contenders for the US Senate seat.  They and their surrogates and supporters have spoken and spoken about who is a friend of Israel.  As of right now, only Carly Fiorina has spoken, in a luncheon speech today at the Sacramento Press Club:

“Middle East policy has become an issue in this race, and that is because the U.S. Senate plays a vitally important role in national security decisions. President Obama said the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is ‘unshakable.’ Now his administration says our alliance is at risk over the construction of homes in Jerusalem,” said Fiorina. “Like most Americans, I believe Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It’s clear that the threat to peace comes from those committed to Israel’s destruction, not those building new houses and schools in Jerusalem.”

Last week, the Israeli government announced plans to construct a new settlement in East Jerusalem in an area that is not part of the settlement construction moratorium. Vice President Biden and other members of the Obama Administration derided the move. As a result, the United States’ relationship with Israel has been weakened, and many experts agree the action has damaged progress toward peace in the region.

“The Obama Administration has failed even to restart peace talks between the two sides, despite the unprecedented concessions of the current Israeli government. We should not allow a zoning decision to undermine our relationship with Israel,” continued Fiorina. “It’s time to tone down the hysterical rhetoric of the Vice President and the Secretary of State and instead put the onus on the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table without any preconditions and without further delay. And today, I am calling on Barbara Boxer to add her voice to those in the Senate who have challenged the Administration on this matter.”

Regardless of the latest Rasmussen poll, if Campbell and DeVore are not capable of reaching a conclusion and quickly speaking out on an important issue, how will either get ahead of or respond in a timely manner to Barbara Boxer during a campaign?

Throw the Bums Out

→ Power Line | 16 Mar 2010 | 3:25 pm MDT

Voters seem to be paying attention to the corrupt processes the Democrats are using to try to take control of the health care industries, and they don't like them. I'm pretty sure that's the explanation for Scott Rasmussen finding Republicans with a ten-point lead in the generic Congressional ballot, 45-35%. That's the biggest lead Rasmussen has found for the Republicans in the three years he has been measuring generic ballot preference. No wonder Nancy Pelosi is having a hard time convincing Democrats from swing districts to walk the plank for Obamacare.

HCR Countdown: Discipline and Punish

→ The Weekly Standard Blog | 16 Mar 2010 | 3:09 pm MDT

Let's say you're a Democratic congressman from a swing district. Your constituency actually went for McCain in 2008 while sending you back to Washington on a split ticket. You had some rowdy town hall meetings during the 2009 August recess and decided to vote No on the House health care bill last November. Now the White House is saying that if you don't vote for the Senate bill in the coming weeks, the president won't appear in your district this fall or raise money for you on the road. And the DNC chairman is saying a Yes vote will be rewarded with support from Obama, Organizing for America, and the national party.

Here's the thing: What good would any of this do? To preserve your seat in an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington, anti-big government year, you have to distance yourself from Obama and the national Democrats anyway -- which is why you want to vote No in the first place!

Carrots and sticks don't matter. What matters is how your district will react to a Yes vote. And fear of reprisal -- not from Obama, not from Tim Kaine, but from the people -- is why Pelosi is still coming up short.

Heritage Foundation: Obamacare Slaughter Rule is without Precedent

→ Hyscience | 16 Mar 2010 | 3:07 pm MDT

According to the Heritage Foundation, contrary to the left's claim that because Republicans have done it in the past, then they can do the same - the Constitutional question is on the table and there is no direct precedent for the House to pass a reconciliation measure which deems a massive health care bill to have passed without a direct vote:

[...] Many on the left are relying on a Congressional Research Service Report (CRS) for the proposition that the Slaughter Rule has been used on numerous occasions. According to CRS, self-executing rules are a "two for one" that describes "when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up." Now many times this has happened to incorporate amendments before a bill receives an up or down vote or it can be used to get a bill to conference.

The self-executing rule can be used to deal with bills containing amendments added by the Senate. The CRS report cites a few examples of self-executing rules to "enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions." The first example CRS identifies is that "on August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less duration." The legislation to prohibit smoking on domestic flights was made part of another bill, then that other bill received a vote. This is very different, because the health care reconciliation measure will not be incorporated into the Senate passed version of Obamacare and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate for separate consideration. (emphasis added)

James Lovelock as Climate Skeptic

→ The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog | 16 Mar 2010 | 2:58 pm MDT

The sun rose in the West. Nancy Pelosi endorsed Glen Beck for president. Barack Obama joined the tea party movement.

James Lovelock praised climate skeptics.

Reports the Times of London:

in 1979, Lovelock published the book-length version of his Gaia theory, which postulates that the Earth functions as a kind of super-organism, with millions of species regulating its temperature. Despite initial scepticism from the Darwinists, who refused to believe that individual organisms could act in harmony, the Gaia theory has been widely accepted and now underlies most atmospheric science.

What, I wondered, would be the great man's view on the latest twists in the atmospheric story -- the Climategate emails and the sloppy science revealed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To my surprise, he immediately professed his admiration for the climate-change sceptics.

"I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane - some of them, anyway," he said. "They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn't be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn't without sin."

What's next? Al Gore telling us that he now believes the earth is headed for a new ice age?

Romneycare Bankrupting Massachusetts, Obamacare Will Do the Same Nationally

→ The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog | 16 Mar 2010 | 2:36 pm MDT

Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is running for governor as an independent this year, has come out swinging against the Democratic health care bill based on a similar experiment in Massachusetts. Yesterday Obama adviser David Axelrod cited "Masscare" as a model for Obamacare.

That's exactly the problem, says Cahill. He told CNBC that such a plan would "wipe out the American economy within four years." He was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying, "It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country."

Cahill kept up the pressure in a conference call this afternoon. He said the problem with the Massachusetts/Obama approach was that it increased access without addressing costs. "We haven't changed the way we deliver health care. We haven't changed the way we pay for health care," Cahill said. "Nothing's changed about the cost structure but we've blown a huge hole in the budget to increase coverage by 400,000." Massachusetts already had one of the highest coverage rates in the country. Implement a similar plan in states with higher percentages of uninsured and the costs will become even more staggering.

I asked Cahill why he was coming out now. "Last week Governor Deval Patrick basically called me out," he replied. He also noted that the bill was moving closer to passage. Cahill wanted to speak out against Patrick's "mismanagement of the program" while also warning against the conceptual flaws that the Democrats want to replicate nationally.

Politically, this not only lets Cahill tap into the anti-health care bill sentiment that helped elect Scott Brown to the Senate. It actually puts him to the right of Brown -- and Mitt Romney -- by marking him as an opponent of the Massachusetts health care reform. Asked about Romney's argument that it was all about the implementation of the plan, Cahill replied, "I could probably agree with that partially. I certainly have some concerns about how Governor Patrick has implemented it." But he also maintained the bill was "fatally flawed from the beginning."

This move will also help Cahill, who was twice elected state treasurer as a Democrat, gain a hearing among conservatives nationally. I've written about Cahill's gubernatorial aspirations before for the main site. I'll have more to say later.

House Democrats want Obama's trip delayed again

→ Hyscience | 16 Mar 2010 | 2:28 pm MDT

This tells me that the Dems not only still don't have the votes, they're divided and struggling to get more, and need Dear Leader's help.

Related: Dead Congress Walking (The liberals are mad at the centrists, the centrists are mad at the liberals. Democrats in the House are angry at those in the Senate, and deeply suspicious of being betrayed. The centrists are also mad at Obama, for picking the wrong cause (health care and not the economy), doing it in the wrong way (big and expensive, not incremental and smaller), and pushing them to risk their careers in backing a cause and a program neither they nor their constituents want.)

Dems Still Don’t Have the CBO Score They Want

→ The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog | 16 Mar 2010 | 2:01 pm MDT

As Democrats have delayed releasing their final health care reconciliation bill, they’ve consistently tried to create the impression that they’re essentially finished, but are merely waiting on the Congressional Budget Office. For instance, House whip Jim Clyburn told Fox earlier that, “We are still waiting on the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to give us its final number on what this thing will cost.” Yet the delay in releasing the bill and CBO score (which was initially supposed to come out as early as last week) has suggested something else – that early estimates from the CBO were bad, and they’re making changes to get the score that they want.

It now appears that this is precisely the case. A story from Congressional Quarterly reports:

House Democratic leaders are still struggling to produce a final health care overhaul bill at an acceptable official cost estimate, but Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Tuesday they continue to plan a final vote this week. House leaders were to huddle late Tuesday afternoon, following a noon session of the full Democratic Caucus. There were reports they are having trouble drafting a bill that meets their budgetary targets….

Rank-and-file Democrats did not talk about the details, but said that the CBO scores had come up short.  “They were less than expected” in terms of deficit reduction, said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who plans to vote for the bill.

There are several things that Democrats are up against when it comes to the CBO score. The most important is that, based on reconciliation instructions, the “fix” bill must be shown to reduce the deficit by at least $1 billion. The challenge is, that’s after assuming that the Senate bill is law. In other words, the reconciliation bill can’t claim any of the deficit reduction from the Senate bill, but rather it must reduce the deficit relative to the Senate bill. Yet the changes that are being talked about will cost a lot of money. This includes eliminating the “Cornhusker kickback” and offering enhanced Medicaid subsidies to all states, increasing subsidies for the purchase of insurance, eliminating the so-called "donut hole" on Medicare prescription drug benefits, and whatever else they put in the bill. At the same time, delaying until 2018 the enactment of the “Cadillac tax” would be scored as a reduction in revenue, and thus add further to the deficit. They’d have to make up the gap through tax increases as well as try to siphon “savings” away from the student loan bill. (More on that here.) But evidently it seems like they’re running into trouble on this front.

Another issue to keep in mind is President Obama’s pledge that the health care bill would cost “around $900 billion" The changes he’s proposed to the Senate bill would bring the total cost of health care legislation to $950 billion, according to the White House. Every dollar exceeding that will make it easier for Republicans to argue he broke his pledge, and at some threshold even the media will have to call him out on it. That isn’t a fight that Democrats are going to want to get into.

Also, Democrats need a CBO score that’s positive enough to help give Blue Dogs who claim to be fiscal conservatives an excuse to vote for the bill.

So this is why it’s Tuesday afternoon and we still haven’t seen a final bill or CBO score. They won’t release a bill as final if the score isn’t to their liking. Democrats could still keep making changes and coming up with new gimmicks to get the estimate that they want, but they do not have forever. If they want to pass a bill by Saturday night and post it online 72 hours in advance, then the latest we they could put things off would be until tomorrow.

Marriage with Cigar Smoke

→ Maggie's Farm | 16 Mar 2010 | 1:30 pm MDT

I suspect that it is a genetic defect specific to married women which causes them to object to the heavenly fragrance of the finest legal and illegal cigars.

Before you marry the gal, she will have no problem with the habit. After you marry them, all you hear about is how the smoke gets in the draperies and upholstery and the insanely-expensive "window treatments."

I have a friend who installed an old 12" brass ship ventilator next to his desk in his library containing a powerful fan, exiting out the wall. A custom design with a baffle to keep snopw from blowing in, and very cool.

In order to preserve an otherwise acceptable marriage, many hedonistic fellows have thought long and hard about how to smoke indoors, and to avoid the humiliating and less-than-relaxing experience of having your smoke out in the rain and blow and snow like a naughty child who has been banned from home and hearth. As a commenter on a relevant site says:

I smoke cigars and can only indulge once in a blue moon and that is basically because I have to go outside to smoke them, I can only smoke during seasons when it's not too hot or too cold, there's nothing to do while smoking, etc. I'd like to have a room where I can smoke a cigar while sitting in a leather chair and watching some TV or a movie or listening to some music. Also I'd like a place where I can play poker with my friends and not have to force them out of the house to smoke cigarettes.

Well, OK. I guess every married guy is pussy-whipped to some extent (and often enough for good reason - many males seem not to domesticate well).

The cheapest solution is to create a negative pressure in your home smoking areas with a cheap window fan like this.

A more expensive solution is a powerful ceiling vent, like a kitchen fan.

The so-called "air purifiers" are a joke, in my view - and especially if you are the sort who likes to have some windows open in your house.  Unlike Al Gore, you cannot purify the planet.

If you have a basement man cave, something like this makes sense.

If readers have any useful ideas short of evicting the spouse or of provoking one's own eviction, please share them.

More than pensions in trouble

→ Maggie's Farm | 16 Mar 2010 | 1:29 pm MDT

$3.2 trillion. (More here.) Plus near that over a full decade for ObamaCare.  Plus, the so-called Social Security trust fund is taking in less that is going out.  Plus, Medicare is already broke.  Plus, hundreds of millions of dollars added to states’ deficits by ObamaCare enlarging Medicaid. All adds up to minuses, from your pockets, from your health, from education and police and other services, from your future.

As the races for governor heat up in thirty-six states, the question of how to fix troubled state-sponsored pension plans may be one of the most challenging that candidates will have to face. State pension plans are underfunded by $3.2 trillion when misguided accounting practices are corrected according to research by Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management, and Robert Novy-Marx at the University of Chicago, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Furthermore, because pension funds are highly exposed to market risks, there is only a 5 percent chance that they will perform well enough to meet the needs of retirees in fifteen years.

Obamacare through the prism of Romneycare

→ Power Line | 16 Mar 2010 | 1:10 pm MDT

Tim Cahill is the state treasurer of Massachusetts. He recently bolted the Democratic Party to run for governor. The Boston Globe reports Cahill's pointed comments on Obamacare as with a local twist:

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state's universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.

"If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years," Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

Echoing criticism leveled by Congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, "It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country."

Cahill, who bolted the Democratic Party in July, has been a long-time critic of the state's health insurance law. He said he was calling today's press conference to respond to Governor Deval Patrick's accusation last week that he and other gubernatorial candidates have been "missing in action" in tackling health care concerns.

Cahill said it is the governor who has not done enough to lower costs imposed by the state's health insurance law, which Cahill said "has nearly bankrupted the state."

Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress.

"The real problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for this health care reform," Cahill said. "And I would argue that we're being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through" Congress.

Commonwealth Connector, the independent state agency established to help residents find the health insurance, has "totally failed," to create competition and connect people with affordable insurance, Cahill said, pointing out that 68 percent of the residents it serves receive subsidized care.

"We haven't done anything about driving down costs," Cahill said. "We haven't helped small business. We haven't changed the way we pay for health care and the way we deliver it."

More here.

Could Cahill's remarks provide an omen? Aaron Blake construes what I would deem a message of hope from Cahill's remarks: "This doesn't bode well for the Democrats' health care bill."

Via reader Dan O'Brien in Holyoke.

It is transparent, isn’t it?

→ Maggie's Farm | 16 Mar 2010 | 1:07 pm MDT

Re: Freedom Of Information Act requests and denials during Obama's administration:

Not just fewer, but over ten percent fewer requests.  Putting those numbers together, the Bush administration had a denial rate of 9.6%.  The Obama administration has a denial rate of 15.9%.   Which President promised more transparency?  And why is the press 10% less interested in the inner workings of government now than it was in 2008?

To put you in the mood for St. Pat's Day!

→ Warning Signs | 16 Mar 2010 | 1:03 pm MDT

Sorry, I Must Stop Posting About Obama

→ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion | 16 Mar 2010 | 12:51 pm MDT

Hi Obama,

I am the Cisco WebEx Solutions Specialist responsible for supporting your area.

Are you available this week or next week for a brief discussion of your current business objectives?

I would like to share some creative ideas about how you can reduce expenses and increase productivity throughout your organization.

Please reply with the best time to reach you.

Best Regards,

Jeff

SEIU vs. the Stupak 12

→ The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog | 16 Mar 2010 | 12:40 pm MDT

John Fund has an important column in the Wall Street Journal about threats by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to back primary challengers to anti-Obamacare Democrats. At this late a date, past many primary filing deadlines, such threats may be overblown. But it is still a shot across the bow to pro-labor Democrats in blue-collar districts who are standing with Bart Stupak. 

That description fits a lot of potential members of the "Stupak 12," including Congressman Stupak himself. Stupak voted with the AFL-CIO 100 percent of the time in 2008 and 98 percent of the time over the course of his legislative career. He voted with AFSCME 100 percent of the time that year and 95 percent of the time throughout his career. Stupak voted with SEIU 100 percent.

The same is true of Dale Kildee, another pro-life Michigan Democrat who has recently threatened to waver on the health care bill's abortion language. He voted with the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2008 and 96 percent lifetime; AFSCME 100 percent in 2008 and 87 percent lifetime; SEIU 100 percent in 2008. Similar numbers hold for Reps. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Charlie Wilson (D-OH), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), and Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.).

In some cases, the previously pro-Stupak Democrats have better voting records from a union perspective than a pro-life one. Mary Kaptur (D-OH) has a mixed record on abortion: In 2007-08, she voted with the National Right to Life Committee 57 percent of the time and with NARAL Pro-Choice America 50 percent. Her NARAL ratings have ranged from a high of 100 percent in 2006 to a low of 35 percent in 2004. But she is consistent on labor issues: Kaptur was with the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2008, 95 percent lifetime; with AFSCME 100 percent 2008, 93 percent lifetime; 100 percent with SEIU.

Baron Hill's (D-Ind.) abortion voting record has also varied, though he voted with NARAL 100 percent of the time in 2007, and his voting record is slightly less pro-labor. But his union ratings -- in the same order as Kaptur, 86 percent, 79 percent, 71 percent, 88 percent, 83 percent -- are higher than any he's received in recent years from a pro-life group. The same is true of Tim Ryan (D-OH), whose National Right to Life Committee score has plummetted from 80 percent in 2005-06 to zero in 2007-08. But Ryan's ratings with the big unions have never dipped below 98 percent.

These voting records aren't determinative, of course, and in some cases it might be too late for union retribution against Democrats who oppose Obamacare on pro-life grounds. But many of the pro-life, economically liberal Democrats inclined to stand with Stupak come from districts where union support is helpful -- and supporting the unions in return is expected.

Some Democrats were opposed to Slaughter-like solutions before they were for it

→ Hyscience | 16 Mar 2010 | 9:50 am MDT

And, as Sister Toldjah quips, you'll never guess which three.

Calling it a flip-flop of epic proportions is an understatement. This is a jaw-dropping, head-slapping, eye-rolling, laugh-out-loud-rolling-on-the-floor, seriously sick flip-flop by the very people pushing this Constitution-busting, Democracy-fracturing, but apparently legal (though highly inappropriate) strategy.

Townhall: 'Texas Kicks Out Liberal Bias From Textbooks'

→ Hyscience | 16 Mar 2010 | 9:22 am MDT

The good news is that the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) just told liberals to stop "messing" with social studies textbooks and has ended years of liberals' revisionist history
imposed on our nation's public school students. The bad news is that it was allowed in the first place.

Phyllis Schlafly writes:

By a 10-to-five margin, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) just told liberals to stop "messing" with social studies textbooks.

For years, liberals have imposed their revisionist history on our nation's public school students, expunging important facts and historic figures while loading the textbooks with liberal propaganda, distortions and cliches. It's easy to get a quick lesson in the virulent left-wing bias by checking the index and noting how textbooks treat President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

When parents object to left-wing inclusions and omissions, claiming they should have something to say about what their own children are being taught and how their taxpayers' money is spent, they are usually vilified as "book burners" and belittled as uneducated primitives who should allow the "experts" to decide. The self-identified "experts" are alumni of liberal teachers colleges and/or members of a left-wing teachers union.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state's board of education, department of education and curriculum committees. Texas is different -- the Texas State Board of Education is elected, and the people (even including parents!) have a voice.

[...] After a public outcry, the SBOE responded with common-sense improvements. Thomas Edison, the world's greatest inventor, will be again included in the narrative of American history.

Schoolchildren will no longer be misled into believing that capitalism and the free market are dirty words and that America has an unjust economic system. Instead, they will learn how the free-enterprise system gave our nation and the world so much that is good for so many people.

Liberals don't like the concept of American exceptionalism. The liberals want to teach what's wrong with America (masquerading under the code word "social justice") instead of what's right and successful. The SBOE voted to include describing how American exceptionalism is based on values that are unique and different from those of other nations.

The SBOE specified that teaching about the Bill of Rights should include a reference to the right to keep and bear arms. Some school curricula pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

Obviously, the best case would be for all states to allow their citizens to have a voice in selecting those that hold so much power over what our children are taught, thereby preventing liberal-progressives' revisionist history to be inserted into our children's curricula. Fortunately, as Schlafly points out in her article, Texas is the largest single purchaser of textbooks, so publishers can hardly afford to print different versions for other states, allowing Texas curriculum standards to have nationwide influence.

Resisting Obama: The New American Revolution

→ Warning Signs | 16 Mar 2010 | 8:54 am MDT

Obama's Latest Health Bill

→ Warning Signs | 16 Mar 2010 | 7:49 am MDT

Is this the week democracy dies in America?

→ Hyscience | 16 Mar 2010 | 7:36 am MDT

AJStrata says this is the week that democracy dies in America, and given what we're seeing the Democrats attempting to pull-off in Washington this week, it's hard to disagree with his argument:

[...] (the) need to fake stories and make up lies to sell this crazy liberal scheme and confiscate our personal health care is why democracy is dying in America. Congress is despised, with less than 20% support and 75% of America in opposition. People want them fired - all of them. And yet they mindlessly continue to push for the destruction of our health care.

And to get there, they plan to destroy our constitution. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are big on talking about an up or down vote on health care. Real big. All they moan about is getting a vote for their proposals. Something they were free to do (and lose on) for over a year now. But that is all really a lie my friends. There will be no vote:

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

To boil down on past all the misinformation, the Democrats will let their members vote on what they wish was in the bill, but illegally bypass reconciliation by saying that means they passed the Senate bill with all the stuff they don't like.

It is all a lie, because the Senate cannot go to reconciliation until the President SIGNS the senate bill. That mess has to become law first, then they may get around to fixing it. They will not vote, they will put on a show and then switch the bills out from under are dumb noses. How slick these people are!

Most of us are resigned to the reality DC is completely out of control and needs to be dismantled. Government now exists to please itself, not work for the people. It is still our country, and we will take it back this November. But right now all we can do is watch the fools tear it apart in their mad quest.

AJ is essentially suggesting that democracy dies when representative government fails, and clearly, the Democrats' health care debacle has now brought us to a point at which the majority party has clearly decided to force its ideologically-based will on the American public. And they are doing so with, as Jennifer Rubin describes it, a bill that is so noxious that lawmakers have to pretend they aren't voting for it in order to, well, vote for it. Hence:

[...] "We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn't want to vote for it."

Even Nancy Pelosi is trying to keep things vague, suggesting it may not come to this. But it is coming to this, because a desperate president and the equally desperate Democratic leadership fear losing, so they resort to tricks, backroom deals, and parliamentary sleights of hand. That's in large part how the bill got to be so unpopular. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem intent on doubling down, so why not load up on the procedural gimmicks? At some point -- now would be as good a time as any -- saner Democratic heads may prevail and wonder why their leaders must shred the Constitution in order to pass a bill that's supposedly such an electoral winner for their side.

Related:
Fact Check: President Obama Repeats Discredited Health Care Claims
Manipulation, Payoffs and Lies -- The Democrats' Endgame On Health Care
Obama's Ideology Threatens America
Axelrod Fibs: "The Life of Medicare Will be Extended" while Meet the Press Stacks Deck with Dems

Slaughtered By Self-Execution

→ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion | 16 Mar 2010 | 7:00 am MDT

Dear Mayor of Monschau

→ Most recent blog entries | 16 Mar 2010 | 6:35 am MDT

Dear Mayor Margareta Ritter (margareta.ritter@stadt.monschau.de),

I have had the pleasure of visiting your exquisitely beautiful German town, the second member of my family to do so. The first was my dad, who, as a member of the 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron in Gen. Bradley's Army, had, with time out to recuperate from wounds incurred at the Battle of St Lo, fought across nothern Europe from D-Day plus 2 until reaching Monschau by the end of 1944.

I only bring this up because I read this morning that you have declared Geert Wilders, who recently weekended in your town, "not welcome" in Monschau. "People who, just like Mr Wilders, encumber the Dutch integration debate with right-wing populism and who want to ban the Qur'an, comparing it to Mein Kampf, are not welcome in Monschau," you are quoted as having said.

I protest. First of all,  it is not "right-wing populism" with which Wilders "encumbers" the integration debate. It is with facts about sharia (Islamic law), a totalitarian and supremacist legal and religious system. He takes these facts to  the public arena, a place where fears of Islamic retribution have to date silenced this essential, civilizational conversation. Another fact he brings, however discomforting to multicultists such as you appear to be, is the similarity between Mein Kampf and the Koran. You may declare Wilders -- and all of his thousands of Dutch supporters -- persona non grata in Monschau; that won't make sharia or those Koran-Kampf similarities go away.   

But maybe you don't care. Maybe you have now found a new totalitarianism to submit to. But I protest your decision to make Monschau off limits to Wilders, a defender of liberty against totalitarianism -- the same liberty my dad was in and around Monschau to defend long ago against a similarly supremacist totalitarianism. I have a strong hunch he would say that, so long as you are in office, liberation wasn't worth the effort.

Sincerely,

Diana West, USA

Obama's Day of Rage In Jerusalem

→ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion | 16 Mar 2010 | 5:53 am MDT

Grinding Away on the Coffee Party

→ Big Lizards | 16 Mar 2010 | 3:11 am MDT

I first heard about the infamous Coffee Party, supposedly a liberal alternative to the right leaning Tea Party movement, at Hot Air; I watched a couple of videos trying to understand what was its pont. After suffering through the rambling, pointless video promos produced by the "unwitting" founder of the Coffee Party, Annabel Park, I concluded that she must be some naive and ignorant college girl. (For one point, she doesn't even seem get the historical reference to "Tea Party," as in Boston.)

Park claims the anti-Tea Party "movement" started when she ranted her frustration on her Facebook page about all the attention the Tea Partiers were getting:

[L]et's start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss 'em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let's get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion.

Within hours, she received dozens of responses. Within days, the idea attracted hundreds of fans. Soon the movement caught the major media's eye. The Washington Post and the New York Times featured the story (now there's a surprise!)

Overnight, Annabel Park, a 41-year-old "independent filmmaker" became the leader of Coffee Party movement.

Now, after two short months, the mob has gotten so big that they're already holding a nation wide Coffee rally:

Since February, the Coffee Party has gathered some 120,000 fans on Face book. And it’s set to bring its virtual community together in public for the first time this Saturday. The group has close to 350 kickoff parties scheduled around the country, with thousands of supporters expected to attend, according to Chris Rigopulos, a Boston-based organizer for the group.

What an incredible grassroots organization! What a difference to the stumbling, humble origins of the Tea Parties: That movement started with just a handful of people here and there gathering in town hall meetings. No organizing, no sponsors, no mass media attention. It took a whole year for the various Tea Parties to organize and hold a convention. Compared to the amateur Tea Partiers, the Coffee Party is almost... professional!

Park describes the Coffee Party as non-partisan and "100% grassroots." I grew skeptical of that point the more I watched her; despite my first impression of naiveté, careful listening of her speechs and videos suggest she is an experienced -- and trained -- political activist:

"We object to obstructionism and extreme political tactics that are I think fear-based, not reality-based, and in many ways just deliberate misinformation"

"I think that it's human for people to be nervous about changes in the neighborhoods and in demographics of the country."

“If you don’t believe that the government has any role, then yeah, you should join the Tea Party,” “But there are many of us who that believe we have to have the government addressing these things, representing our interests.”

The careful way Park characterizes Tea Partiers as obstructionists, fear mongers, liars, racists, and anarchists, without directly saying so, takes well-developed skill. This is not the speech of a naive college student or simple independent film maker, whatever that means.

Surprise, surprise, it turns out that her role as leader of that leftist political movement called the Coffee Party is no accident, no matter what the elite media tendentiously claim. As Andrew Breitbart of BigJournalism.com notes:

Yet there was nothing accidental about Park’s anti-Tea Party activism; the Coffee Party’s roots are about as grassy as the signature surface of the old Houston Astrodome; and Park’s facade of cooperation is undermined by her “tea bagger” epithets on Twitter.

Meanwhile, her claim that the Coffee Party is “purely grassroots” and “independent of any party” is laughably rebutted by the fact that the registrant for the website was listed as “Real Virginians For Webb, 14461 Sedona Drive, Gainesville, Virginia 20155” until the information suddenly went private behind a proxy. That’s “Webb” as in Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, one of at least two elected Democrats for whom Park has actively campaigned (as evidenced by this campaign video, “Real Virginians for Webb”:

In fact, Park has been an ardent supporter of Barack Obama since forever... so much so that she made her own pro-Obama YouTube promotional videos:

So intense was her support for the would-be president that Park co-directed a video for the YouTube channel, UnitedForObama, in which she encourages her mother to give a pro-Obama testimonial in their native Korean. The slick four-minute production, titled “Annabel’s Mom Takes on Sarah Palin, In Korean!!!,” features jaunty piano music and English translations of her mother’s homage to Obama, including this comment, which has the vague ring of a “Dear Leader” haiku:

I listened to Obama’s speeches/and, though my English isn’t perfect/I started to change my mind about him./I came to understand/what he wanted to accomplish/and what we really need is Obama.

Having now been exposed, Park is hardly apologetic. On the March 4th edition of the Coffee Party USA website, the Party line stated:

Annabel was never paid by the Obama campaign, but she worked very hard as volunteer, as did millions of other Americans. A newspaper inaccurately reported that Annabel held a videographer position. But, if there is anyone who cares about such things, and also cares about getting their facts straight, the truth is very easy to verify.

To date, neither Annabel nor her partner Eric Byler have ever been hired by a political campaign or by a political organization. They are active citizens who, as volunteers have knocked on doors, made phone calls, and made videos:....

They are proud of a record of inventive civic engagement and have nothing to hide. If they didn't want people to see their work, they wouldn't have put it on YouTube!

So Annabel Park is a veteran Democratic media shill, trained and experienced; yet she did all that work for candidate Obama without being paid. Translation: Park is a diehard liberal (and Obamic) partisan. And far from being grassroots, this "movement" is a cynical ploy designed to manipulate inattentive viewers into believing that the left-liberal dogma spewed forth by the Coffee Party on a daily basis accurately represents real America.

Look for the elite media to keep percolating the Coffee Party right up through the November elections. Then abruptly, the fame and adulation will stop, and Annabel Park will be dropped to the floor, like an outgrown and broken toy.

Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, Ms. P; you and your "partner" both.

The Hill's "Whip Count" on ObamaCare - GOP Picking Up Votes

→ Big Lizards | 15 Mar 2010 | 10:44 pm MDT

In our last installment on Saturday, we were able to report the following:

The Hill newspaper is published daily in the nation's capital while Congress is in session, which is unfortunately true right now. They've been publishing a daily (or so) whip-count; that is, the Democratic and Republican leaders tell the Hill how many votes they think they have, and the paper makes the final judgment (presumably after talking to some of the waverers).

In the count published today, here's how we stand:

• All 178 Republicans will vote Nay.
• 34 of the Democrats are firm, leaning, or likely Nays; this includes eight Democrats who voted Yea the last time around in November.
• 147 Democrats are firm, leaning, or likely Yeas.
• The remaining 72 Democrats are "undecided."

That puts the current count at 147 Yea, 212 Nay, with 72 toss-ups. Note that a majority is currently 216, since there are only 431 members of the House right now.

In today's whip-count, we see some movement -- and astonishingly, considering all the proclamations of Obamic victory, it's in the right direction!

• All 178 Republicans will vote Nay.
• 37 of the Democrats are firm, leaning, or likely Nays, three more than last time.
• 146 Democrats are firm, leaning, or likely Yeas (one fewer than Saturday).
• The remaining 70 Democrats are "undecided" (two fewer).

That's 146 Yeas, 215 Nays, with 70 ditherers, and majority is still 216.

In other words, ObamaCare is just one vote shy of defeat in the House... with 70 votes still up for grabs. We must win over one more Democrat -- before they win over 70: If Democrats lose even one more congressman, the bill dies.

I still have full faith and confidence in the American people; we have proven ourselves to be steadfast in our rejection of a radical rewrite of all health-insurance rules. The danger is not the American people but rather the Democratic majority, which might still trample the people down with hobnail boots.

But more and more, it appears that simple self-interest will kill this wretched act; simply put, most United States Representatives like their jobs and want to keep them.

But even if the worst happens, even if the Dems suddenly reverse the momentum and end up eking out a marginal victory, I still believe that we can repeal ObamaCare -- despite the fact that (as I am reliably informed) no major new government social bureaucracy has ever been "uncreated." Think of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Why am I so positive? First, because the reliable claim is not particularly reliable; for one example, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was an FDR-era welfare entitlement created, as Aid to Dependent Children, as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. Yet it was repealed in 1996, to be replaced with a radically different and far more temporary welfare program titled Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Even the New Republic has recently hailed the repeal of AFDC and enactment of TANF instead [hat tip Wikipedia, of all sites]; TNR editorial of September 4, 2006, p. 7; the piece appears not to be available online:

A broad consensus now holds that welfare reform was certainly not a disaster--and that it may, in fact, have worked much as its designers had hoped.

But the second reason I am convinced that ObamaCare can be repealed is that it differs significantly from all other social-welfare, social-control bureaucracies enacted by Congress -- including AFDC. Unlike all the others, ObamaCare is not supported by voters; it is vehemently opposed by large margins.

If President Barack H. Obama's scheme is finally enacted, it will be over the earsplitting objections of the American people. By contrast, programs such as Social Security and Medicare were wildly popular when they were enacted -- and most retain strong majority support even today.

We have never before enacted such wholesale change in the balance between government and governed -- when the bill itself was so intensely unpopular; I daresay it's the most unheard-of thing I ever heard of. For that reason, I simply do not believe it will be passed; but even if it is, I do not believe it will survive long in the 112th Congress.

So hip hip, chin chin, and keep your welly up. Courage, Camille. This too shall pass away!

Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

The Obama Stimulus at Work

→ Warning Signs | 15 Mar 2010 | 5:54 pm MDT

What If You Threw A Coffee Party, And Mostly Middle-Aged White Males Showed Up?

→ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion | 15 Mar 2010 | 4:35 pm MDT

AOL News had correspondents at four of the gatherings -- in Bethalto, Ill. (a village near the Missouri border), the college town of Corvallis, Ore., Omaha, Neb., and Orlando, Fla. Their reports -- though obviously not a scientific sampling -- provide a composite portrait of the Coffee Party's early recruits....

Attendance: From a low of eight in Corvallis, Ore., to a high of 41 in Orlando.

Average Age: 48.45

Gender and Racial Breakdown: The crowds at the four events our correspondents attended were predominately white and roughly 60 percent male.

Obama Adding Fuel To The Al-Aqsa Fire

→ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion | 15 Mar 2010 | 1:10 pm MDT

Like a chess player patiently waiting for his opponent to make the first mistake, the U.S. administration has pounced on the opportunity to vent its anger with Israel. The public humiliation of Vice President Joe Biden during his visit in Israel was, apparently, the last straw.

Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

Even though it was Israel who sparked the most recent crisis over Jerusalem, it is not the only player adding fuel to the fire. The behavior of the Obama administration - with senior officials trying to outdo each other in public reprimands of Israel - is reminiscent of the intentionally tough stance taken on the Netanyahu government a year ago. Nor are the Palestinians missing the opportunity to fan the flames.

True, the prime minister played into their hands on the matter of proposed construction in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, and Jerusalem's mayor is still at it, but the Palestinian Authority is playing a very dangerous game - perhaps the most dangerous of it all - over Jerusalem and specifically the Temple Mount.

Mohammed Dahlan, who is not known for his religious fervor, Khatem Abdel Kader, who holds the Jerusalem portfolio in Fatah, and others called Sunday on Israeli Arabs and residents of East Jerusalem to go to the Temple Mount today to "protect it from the Jews." A pamphlet Sunday issued a similar call; it was signed by the National and Islamic Forces, an organization that coordinated activities during the second intifada and in practice does not exist today

Is Petraeus an Islamic Tool? Part 2

→ Most recent blog entries | 15 Mar 2010 | 12:36 pm MDT

Last June, I noted Gen. David Petraeus's MoveOn.org-like take on Guantanamo Bay -- close it because it causes us problems and violates (unspecified) Geneva Conventions -- and his willingness to attribute to the Palestinian war on Israel "justifications" for the existence of Hezbollah.

Now this from Foreign Policy (via Judeosphere):

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue.

Read: further Israeli concessions.

The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

Mind, this was supposes to be a military briefing, not an OIC event.

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations.

Imperial General Time.

Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged  in the region's most troublesome conflict.

Q: Since when does the US supreme commander ensure that US military doctrine conforms to Arab perceptions? A: Since now.

The Foreign Policy piece includes an update:

[UPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

So, Petraeus did propose to put Israel under his purview, but to Mullen, not to the White House. The report goes on:

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had  to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. ... Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message....

The dhimmi-hostage message carried by Gen.Petraeus being that Israel building 1,600 apartments in Jerusalem places US troops' lives in danger in the wider region (Iraq and Afghanistan). Such appeasement, this time at the expense of the Israelis, will only embolden all of our jihadist enemies to make more and more outrageous demands. The story continues:

Israel didn't.

Well, thank goodness.

When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem,

He should have gone and cut a ribbon on the project

the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing:  "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."

Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American  lives.

How about Israelis continuing to breathe? Is that okay?

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. ...

Here's a plan Gen. Petraeus should be able to get behind: A new battle strategy, maybe a Kilcullen special, for him to join forces with Iran to once and for all nuke Israel and its genocidal apartment houses  out of existence. That, according to his own lights, is sure to keep American troops safe in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heck, it would win the war -- or at least the jihad.

Haranguing Israel

→ Warning Signs | 15 Mar 2010 | 12:15 pm MDT

The China Syndrome Counterpunch

→ Big Lizards | 14 Mar 2010 | 12:09 am MST

One fear that obsesses too many folks is that the People's Republic of China, a.k.a. Red China, "owns" a scandalous chunk of our national debt in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds; and that they will somehow be able to use these holdings to force us to dance to the tune they pipe, turning America into a Chinese vassal state.

When pressed on how they could physically do this, fearmongers suggest China could threaten to dump all their T-bills at bargain-basement prices, driving down the value of the bonds we need to sell to finance our out-of-control spending. The sudden drop in bond values would force us to jack the interest rate through the sky, just to get people to buy them. This in turn is supposed to drive our prime rate into the stratosphere as well, bankrupting the country.

To avoid this scenario -- dubbed the "China Syndrome" by some economists -- we will (so goes the argument) give the Commies anything they demand in the way of foreign and domestic policy and military stand-downs... to appease them, placate them, and keep them from carrying through their extortion.

Beldar has posted a fascinating (as usual) and long (as always) essay on the subject. He comes to the well-founded and irrefutable conclusion that there truly is little to fear from the fact that Commies hold such a huge amount of our debt:

A company's largest shareholder is not much at all like its largest bondholder. He who buys a company's bonds gets to stand at the front of the line, ahead of equity holders (like shareholders), if there's a forced liquidation of the company and a distribution of its net assets. But in exchange, the bond holder generally has to forfeit all rights to participate in the management of the company's business unless and until there's a default by the company on its promise to repay according to the terms of the bond. And the caselaw says that companies owe all sorts of fiduciary and other unwritten, vague, but powerful duties to shareholders, whereas companies own nothing more to their debt holders than the precise minimums to which the companies are specifically committed by explicit written contractual promises to the bondholders....

No matter how many Treasury bonds China buys, it can't somehow "convert" those into a right to cast votes in the U.S. Senate or to give instructions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The holder of an American federal bond has a contractual right, enforceable against the U.S. government under its own laws and in its own courts, to repayment of principal and payment of interest on the exact terms specified in the bond. And that's all it has. [All emphasis is in the original, except for this note that all emphasis is in the original. -- DaH]

But I have another angle on the whole thing. I say it would be absolutely wonderful for us if the Chinese really did enact their eponymous syndrome!

So why am I right and all those professional economists wrong? Because they think like acolytes of the Dismal Science -- that is, dismally -- whereas I think like a novelist.

Here is my scenario:

1. Red China threatens us with a China Syndrome unless we sever relations with Taiwan (for example).
2. We tell them to go stuff an eggroll.
3. They decide to call our "bluff," and they really do dump all their T-bills at, say, half their current value.
4. The Federal Reserve jumps into action, working through proxies to buy every dang Treasury Note China sells, as many as we can get our mitts on.
5. Now that we have bought back hundreds of billions of dollars of our "debt" for fifty cents on the dollar, we wait for the dust to settle and the market to recover -- then we sell them again for the normal price.
6. We send a letter to Beijing, thanking them for their generous donation to the Save Liberty and U.S. Sovereign Health (SLUSSH) fund. With heartfelt thanks, we settle back to enjoy our windfall profit on our own debt instruments.

The moral is simple: Whenever any entity -- whether individual person, giant corporation, or sovereign nation -- buys or sells bonds, equities, derivatives, collectibles, futures, or indeed any other investment instrument on the basis of politics, party, policy, or pique -- that is, whenever one makes investment decisions for any reason other than pure economics -- that entity is going to lose its shirt... along with its coat, tie, pants, and undies.

This Lizardian Rule of Thumb applies to universities that divest their stock in Israeli companies to protest Israel's dealings with the Palestinians; it applies to lefties who dump their mutual funds if they contain Starbucks or Nike stock; and it applies to conservative Christians who will only invest in companies that are run by ministers: You're going to lose a huge wad of your return by letting extraneous circumstances dictate your financial decisions.

Now you may think the trade off is worth it, and who could argue? Just bear in mind that you are donating beaucoup bucks to your favorite cause; if that's all right with you, I certainly don't care. So long as you are aware of what you are doing, and so long as you don't violate any fiduciary responsiblities you may have to shareholders (or moral duties to those who take your advice).

But I doubt that China is really that altruist. They're not going to donate hundreds of billions back to the U.S. just to make a political point. (That what? That they're too stupid to be trusted with monetary decisions?)

So let that be another reassurance that there will be no China Syndrome... at least until and unless we default on our repayment obligations, in which case dumping the bonds would be a purely economic decision anyway!

The Hill's "Whip Count" on ObamaCare - as of Today

→ Big Lizards | 13 Mar 2010 | 12:43 pm MST

The Hill newspaper is published daily in the nation's capital while Congress is in session, which is unfortunately true right now. They've been publishing a daily (or so) whip-count; that is, the Democratic and Republican leaders tell the Hill how many votes they think they have, and the paper makes the final judgment (presumably after talking to some of the waverers).

In the count published today, here's how we stand:

• All 178 Republicans will vote Nay.
• 34 of the Democrats are firm, leaning, or likely Nays; this includes eight Democrats who voted Yea the last time around in November.
• 147 Democrats are firm, leaning, or likely Yeas.
• The remaining 72 Democrats are "undecided."

That puts the current count at 147 Yea, 212 Nay, with 72 toss-ups. Note that a majority is currently 216, since there are only 431 members of the House right now.

To put it in a nuthouse, Republicans must get 4 of those toss-up Dems to vote Nay, while the Democrats must get 69 of the toss-up Dems to vote Yea.

It should be obvious now why Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 100%) has not yet called the vote: The risk is too great that the Nay-sayers will get their 4 before the Yes-men get their 69. And she won't call the vote until the whip-count shows better odds for ObamaCare than against it.

Now I expect the great majority of those toss-up Dems will eventually vote for ObamaCare; but if they lose only 4 out of the 72 (6%) it goes down. Bear in mind that when the current Congress ends -- probably sometime in late November or December -- any legislation passed in one or both chambers but not signed into law dies.

The new Congress would have to start all over again with ObamaCare (if it's still controlled by Democrats); the new House cannot simply pass the previous Senate's bill and send it to President Barack H. Obama for signature.

As a more practical matter, the closer we edge to the November 2nd elections, the greater the pressure on the toss-up Dems to vote Nay, since that is the way most of their constituents want them to vote.

I would guess that the window will firmly shut in late May or early June; after that -- with one dangerous exception -- ObamaCare cannot be enacted, for reasons of politics.

The one dangerous exception is the putative "lame-duck" period of the second session of the 111th Congress... the short interval after the elections but before the 112th Congress is seated on January 3rd (per the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

During those two months, every representative in the House already knows whether he has been reelected, and the Senate bill is still in effect.

A defeated Democrat has nothing to lose by voting for ObamaCare. If enough of those currently leaning towards Nay are defeated, they may, in a fit of vindictive revenge against the constituents who fired them, vote in as perverse a manner as possible. (Though of course, it's unlikely the reconciliation side of the package could also be enacted during that period.)

This is the most likely time for ObamaCare to be enacted, since it would then have virtually no consequences on its supporters: Many of the Democrats voting for it will have already been defeated; and for those from moderate districts who were nevertheless reelected, a December vote gives them the maximal "memory-lapse" time before facing voters again in 2012.

I'm quite concerned about that interval; has the GOP given it much thought?

Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Updated: Meanwhile, Back in Afghanistan ...

→ Most recent blog entries | 12 Mar 2010 | 6:42 pm MST

Shinwari tribal elders arriving to pick up their US booty, I mean, convene a shura: Quick, Mohmand subtribe or Alisher subtribe? Or Khogyani, perchance? And does it make any difference to US national security??

----

Been a while since I posted about Afghanistan, having been focused on potentially hopeful developments in Europe -- specifically the potentional for reverse Islamization as manifested by Geert Wilders' recent political successes in the Netherlands. Remember, the fate of Europe (repeat after me) matters more to the US than the fate of Afghanistan. That's because an Islamic Europe of the possibly near future is of far deeper, graver concern to the future of Western-style liberty than whether an Islamic narco-kleptocracy in South Asia functions at some minimal level according to Western lights. The only thing important in Afghanistan are the lives and limbs of somewhere on its way up to 100,000 American and allied troops there. As Gen. Paul Vallely points out: "Jihadists with small arms and IEDS in faraway places cannot harm the United States so there is no reason to order massive armies that require large and extensive bases and massive logistical support to fight them on their home turf. But that is the essence of failed “counterinsurgency” (COIN) strategies that have bewitched US military political leaders." Pull the troops out to fight jihad better and smarter, and presto, roughly, we can try to  forget about Afghanistan.

Or do we really just want a lot more of this? From the New York Times:

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.

I remember that. It was hailed as a big deal, "the first time an entire Pashtun tribe" of 400,000 members had declared war on the Taliban -- and they were gonna get $1 million bucks "in development" for their trouble directly from US commanders.

It never sounded like a good bet, despite the rousing proclamation "that the Shinwari tribe stands unified against all insurgent groups, specifically the Taliban,” as the tribe agreeed. From that January story:

But the Shinwari elders did not merely declare their opposition to the Taliban. Although they declared their allegiance to the Afghan government, they directed at it a nearly equal measure of fury, condemning “all the corruption and illegal activities that threaten the Afghan people.”

“We are doing this for ourselves, and ourselves only,” said Hajji Kafta, one of the elders. “We have absolutely no faith in the Afghan government to do anything for us. We don’t trust them at all.”

Sensing opportunity — and wanting the agreement to stick — the American officers decided to bypass the government entirely and pledge $1 million in development aid directly to the Shinwari elders. ...

Which sounded like a good deal -- for the Shiwari elders. That was then. Here's the rest of today's article:

This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.

In other words, now US foreign policy is enmeshed in Pashtun, Shinwari subtribal enmity. And how does that keep America safe again? How does that stop the spread of sharia by violent (terrorism) and non-violent (immigration) means?

The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. ...

Like the sainted Sunni "Awakening" in Iraq. Show them the money, replicate the pledge -- and then what? Your money's gone and so is the "pledge."

Questions for Shinwari tribal elders this week about whether the pact against the Taliban still stood went unanswered as the elders turned the conversation to their intratribal struggle.

In other words, don't bother us with unimportant things; we have a pointless, interneccine struggle to get on with.

“We promised to work with the government to fight the Taliban,” said Hajji Gul Nazar, an elder from the Mohmand branch of the Shinwari tribe. He added, “Well, the government officials should have taken care of this argument among us before the shooting started.”

“We are the same tribe, and we are not happy killing each other,” he said. “The provincial police chief and the governor should have taken care of this issue.”

Finally, the perfect candidate for Obamacare.

The dispute began about 10 days ago when the Alisher subtribe of the Shinwari laid a claim to land also claimed by another branch of the tribe called the Mohmand. The disputed area covers about 22,000 acres near the Pakistani border and about 20 miles from Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar Province.

Staking their claim, the Mohmand set up tents on the land, according to tribal elders. The government called on both sides to hold a peaceful discussion among tribal elders, known as a shura.

The Alisher repeatedly asked the Mohmand to remove their tents from the disputed land. After more than a week of discussion and no sign that the Mohmand were budging, the Alisher called the police.

The police arrived and began to remove the tents, infuriating the Mohmand, who became even more infuriated when the Alisher began to help the police knock down the tents. When some members of the Alisher began to burn the tents, the Mohmand attacked the Alisher, firing rocket-propelled grenades, mortar launchers, machine guns and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, according to local commanders and Afghan border police officers, who did not wish to be quoted by name.

Several Alisher elders alleged that the police had helped the Mohmand.

Alisher, Mohmand, Alisher, Mohmand...let's call the whole thing off.

“We heard that Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai and the local police chief gave arms to the Mohmand,” said Babarzai, a well-known Alisher poet in the area, who, like many Afghans, uses only one name. “We spent all of yesterday burying our dead. Now there are many widows in our tribe.”

The government of Nangarhar Province denied the accusation. “Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai would never do anything like that,” said his spokesman, Ahmadzia Abdulzai. “Our goal is always to bring the tribes together.”

A deputy interior minister arrived from Kabul on Thursday with several other dignitaries from the capital to attend funerals for those who were killed and to encourage peace.

Elders from the Khogyani, another local tribe, met with 100 elders from each of the feuding subtribes to participate in a a peace shura to defuse tensions.

“I don’t think the shura will work,” said Hajji Gul Nazar, a Mohmand elder who was not able to attend the shura. “The Alisher have lost people and have so many wounded, and lots of their tents were burned by our people, and motorcycles were burned, and cars. They must be waiting to take revenge on us.”...

Notice no one has mentioned what happens to the million bux.

And notice no one has a clue about the Big Picture.

Traders to the Cause - Republicans Are All Ears

→ Big Lizards | 12 Mar 2010 | 4:22 pm MST

In 2006, incoming Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 100%) infamously promised that the Democrats would run "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." When President Barack H. Obama ran for president two years later, he made a similar pledge of ethics and transparency that would rise so high above the supposed gutter-level of the George W. Bush administration, it would be heaven on Earth. He explicitly pledged that lobbyists would find no home in the Obama administration.

Now, after a year plus of Obamunism, we're starting to see the outlines of those ethics and that transparency:

President Obama's pick to oversee export controls at the Commerce Department is a trade lawyer whose recent clients include two companies on a government watch list and a shipping business that agreed to pay millions of dollars last year to resolve a federal probe into shipments to Iran, Sudan and Syria.

All three companies have had recent interests before the government office that Eric Hirschhorn would oversee if he is confirmed as undersecretary of commerce for industry and security....

"If confirmed, Mr. Hirschhorn will be required to recuse himself for two years on all matters in which his former clients are parties or represent parties," Commerce Department spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said.

Do ye want yer old lobby washed down?

Eric Hirschhorn is a lawyer who most recently acted as a lobbyist for a couple of Hong Kong companies linked to Mayrow General Trading (Dubai); the feds linked Mayrow to manufactured parts found in IEDs set in Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis. He also represented a DHL division that had to pay a huge fine for unlawful shipping to Iran, Syria, and Sudan.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke singled out Mayrow in a speech last fall on export controls, saying that through work with the United Arab Emirates, "we successfully targeted Mayrow General Trading, which was forwarding U.S.-made goods to Iran that ended up in bombs in Iraq."

But I'm sure naming Hirschhorn to a top Commerce Department job -- where he "would oversee the Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security, which controls exports of technology, software and dual-use items that can be used for both commercial and military purposes" -- was a mere oversight, a fluke event. He'll just recuse himself in a few cases, and then all will be well. Oh, wait; there's this:

Another top export official at the department, Kevin J. Wolf, a trade lawyer recently confirmed by the Senate as assistant secretary for export administration, is recusing himself from matters involving 36 former clients, including major exporters such as Raytheon and Boeing.

At least there's no suggestion that Mr. Wolf's former clients are linked to IEDs in Iraq, thank goodness.

But it is peculiar just how easy it seems for lawyers and lobbyists, deeply committed to their oft-unsavory clients, to find themselves working in the Obama administration at the very body they used to lobby; one wonders how many of these appointees expect to return to their former advocacy jobs as soon as legally allowed after finishing their stints in the Obama administration... thus might (just a thought) make decisions with an eye towards future employment, after their recusal period ends.

Paul Mirengoff has recently noted that it's unfair to refer to seven Justice Department lawyers who voluntarily sought to defend America-attacking terrorists held in the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility as "the al-Qaeda Seven," since that implies that the lawyers share the views of al-Qaeda. All right, I won't argue against that case; but what does it say about the President of the United States that he has such a fetish for hiring such individuals into the administration, his administration?

Not only those seven at the Department of Justice, but now Mr. Hirschhorn to the Commerce Department, where he will "oversee" the committee that decides what companies can export to which enemy recipients; and of course, many, many other former lobbyists or advocates against America have wound up in the current administration... starting, I note, with the president himself, who called on the U.S. military in Iraq to declare defeat and go home.

The president should be held to a higher standard than merely saying that it's not strictly illegal for him to appoint a tendentious partisan on the enemy's side to a powerful post in D.C.:

• Barack Obama has no duty to those companies;
• Barack Obama did not represent them, nor did he have any responsibility to ensure they were represented;
• Barack Obama is supposed to pick the best person for a job, taking all factors into account;
• Barack Obama himself knows that not every person who is technically qualified under the law is therefore a good choice for high-ranking positions in the government.

Those are two different standards: Activity that may be perfectly legal -- such as lobbying for companies that are already known to be aiding and abetting Iran's program to build IEDs to blow up American soldiers, Marines, and civilians -- can still be a common-sense disqualifier for a plum federal position. Nobody has a "right" to be named to the Department of Justice, Commerce, or any other federal agency.

What's next -- if Attorney General Eric Holder resigns, will Obama replace him with some lawyer who rushed to file a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court demanding the release from military custody New York "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla?

Oh, wait. My mistake: That was Attorney General Eric Holder, not some hypothetical replacement, who forgot to mention that amicus curae brief during his confirmation hearings. Never mind!

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...

In the meanwhile, Republicans are not letting the crisis of a yawning chasm between rhetoric and reality under Barack Obama go to waste:

In a move to break with the GOP's big-spending past, House Republicans voted Thursday to ban their members this year from requesting earmarks, the pork-barrel spending that directs money to pet projects in home districts....

"Today, House Republicans took an important step toward showing the American people we're serious about reform by adopting an immediate, unilateral ban on all earmarks," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, adding that this was just a first step in a broader fight to control overall spending.

Blindsided by the GOP's sudden burst of propriety -- Pelosi never expected that! -- Democrats labored mightily to respond -- and gave birth to a mouse:

On Wednesday, House Democrats announced another new rule, one to ban earmarks to for-profit companies.

Fortunately, this will not prevent Democrats from using earmarks to funnel money to ACORN. Or to International ANSWER or the SEIU. Or to some "charity," such as the Holy Land Foundation. Or to Hamas itself, if they really wanted to do; last I checked, the Palestinian terrorist organization was not a "for-profit company," hence not covered by the ban.

So there you have a tale of two parties: One is showered daily by a cornucopia of corruption... while the other can only sigh wistfully for the good old days, when it had its own bottomless bowl of largess.

Previous posts in our neverending series about the Democratic culture of corruption and earwax:

1. The Missing Earpiece
2. Has Nancy Pelosi Changed Her Mind About Ears?
3. The Democrats Are All Ears
4. Earmarks? No No... Phonemarks!
5. They're All Ears... Again
6. The Power of the Big Idea: O'Billery Reduced to "Me Too!"

Do not mess with people's beer

→ The Annoyed White Male | 12 Mar 2010 | 9:06 am MST

Read this first, then check out the reaction.

You can mess with their health care, jobs, 401k, property values, privacy, freedom, and guns but DO NOT mess with the beer.

US Representative Poe on Dutch Parliamentarian Wilders

→ Most recent blog entries | 12 Mar 2010 | 8:59 am MST

On the floor of the House yesterday, Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, had this to say about Geert Wilders:

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech continues to be shouted down by the politically correct police. In the Netherlands, it is against the law to say something that offends someone else’s religion. That is why Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders is on trial for hurting people’s feelings.He made a movie about terrorists and radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name hate. Now he is on trial for insulting Islam.

He is charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred. Because Dutch law is intolerant of intolerance.The Dutch courts say even truthful insult speech is a crime. Sounds like the law has become the enemy of free speech and a protector of the radicals.

Geert Wilders boldly brings to the world’s attention the dangers of religious radicals who believe in hateful violence, and he gets in trouble for it. He ought to be commended rather than condemned and charged with a crime.

Freedom of speech is a universal human right, granted by God, especially if that speech is political, religious or truthful. A free people won’t tolerate intolerance for freedom for very long.

And that's just the way it is.

Fox's Beck, Krauthammer & Kristol: Wrong on Wilders (Much to Talal's Delight)

→ Most recent blog entries | 11 Mar 2010 | 5:49 pm MST

Murdoch and Talal, together, in Abu Dhabi this week: It's a long way from Rudy Giuliani's Big Dis in Manhattan

This week's syndicated  column:

When Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol each from their respective Fox News perches branded Dutch political phenom Geert Wilders as beyond the political pale, it was shocking and outrageously so, and for several reasons.

One. I’ve grown used to Fox News and all other media ignoring not just the Wilders story but also the cultural story of the century, altogether – namely, the  Islamization of Europe, something Wilders, a great admirer of Ronald Reagan and a committed supporter Israel, is dedicated to halt and reverse. The survival instinct of the Dutch, who, earlier this month gave unprecedented electoral victories to Wilders and his party, is a strong indicator that this civilizational transformation is not irreversible. But covering the Islamization of Europe, as readers of this column know, usually makes for bad news. And worse, at least according to the powers-that-be, even half-way competent reporting on the subject puts Islam in a bad light because it reveals exactly what happens to Western-style liberty when Muslims enter a non-Muslim host country in sufficient numbers to enact and extend sharia (Islamic law) over a heretofore Judeo-Christian-humanist society.

Better safe (politically correct) than sorry (subject to potential boycott or worse), our media prefer, frittering away precious powers afforded by the First Amendment. This motto seems to go double at Fox ever since Rupert Murdoch, for reasons unknown, sold what is now a seven percent stake of Fox’s parent company News Corp. to a scion of the sharia-dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. For the Fox commentators, supposedly punditry’s bulwark of Western values, to bring it up just to slap it down -- and without factual care (to say the least) -- was disappointing but also irresponsible.

Two. Readers may recall that I’ve questioned Talal’s ownership stake before (previous column here, post here). This week, much too synergistically, after Murdoch’s and Talal’s all-stars warned Fox viewers about the Wilders threat, in effect, to Islam in Europe, Murdoch was in Abu Dhabi, along with Talal and 400 other media executives, announcing that key components of the News Corp. empire were moving into the Islamic world, into the United Arab Emirates.  

Remember the UAE, notorious for enslaving Bangledeshi boys as camel jockeys, for its support of Hamas? It was the UAE whose ministers and princes were hunting with Osama bin Laden, preventing the Clinton White House from taking a cruise missile shot at the jihad kingpin. It was the UAE that was one of three countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to recognize the Taliban. And it was the UAE’s Dubai Ports World that was thwarted in a pre-tea-party populist uproar about these connections and more (eleven of the 9/11 hijackers, including two UAE citizens, were deployed to the US from Dubai). The UAE is “not free” now, says Freedom House, and never has been. You get the picture. It is now complete with a macabre vision of a News Corp.’s Middle Eastern headquarters potentially rising into the skyline, the better to oversee, perhaps, Murdoch’s new 9.1 percent stake in Prince Talal’s Arab media company Rotana.

What impact does the Islamization of News Corp. have on “fair and balanced” news Stateside? I don’t know. But when one of the big bosses is a Saudi prince, it doesn’t exactly encourage reporters to doodle spoofs of the Danish Motoons on their notepads, let alone engage in “offensive,” PC-busting debate in the news room or on the air.

Three. Regardless of cause or effect, the fact remains that in classifying Wilders as a fascist (Beck), denouncing his views as “extreme, radical and wrong” (Krauthammer), and slandering him as a “demagogue” (Kristol), Fox’s opinion-leaders expressed themselves in terms that surely thrilled not just Murdoch’s Islamic prince-cronies, but also the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This is the organization driving the advance of sharia in the world, as, for example, at the United Nations, where it leads an endless campaign to outlaw all criticism of Islam – such as Wilders’ -- under the PC-sensitive rubric of banning “defamation of religion.”

Technical issues

→ The Annoyed White Male | 11 Mar 2010 | 1:00 pm MST

I'm having a lot of trouble with my computin' machine making doing anything here a PITA.  Firefox is giving me grief, hanging up, breaking my login in mid-post.  I'm trying to figure it out when I feel like it.  As I'm a bit off blogging at the moment anyway it's not a high priority.  I am most gratified that there are a few people that will actually read this and care.  In in words of the T-100, I'll be back.

I have had zero luck finding work and nearly the same even finding places to send resumes.  My trade was slow last time I was laid off in late 2008, it's now completely dead.  It's not just me- I ran into a co-worker from 2 jobs ago and he'd been laid off from the same place I was.  He'd been there for 10 years.  He landed the job he'd always really wanted: working in a motorcycle shop where I met him.  I won't be that lucky.  I would love to find something I could do freelance and forget working for The Man.  The time to go freelance is when things are booming.  At the moment nothing I can do has much value.

What do you get when you combine a state-run business with the State Police?

→ The Annoyed White Male | 8 Mar 2010 | 4:10 pm MST

This:

The alleged offense: Although the bar owners had bought the beer legally from licensed Pennsylvania distributors and had paid all the necessary taxes, the police claimed that nobody had registered the precise names of the beers with the state Liquor Control Board - a process that requires the brewers or their importers to pay a $75 registration fee for each product they want to sell in Pennsylvania.

For those of you not buying booze in Pennsylvania, a brief history.  Since the end of Prohibition all alcohol was sold only by the state itself.  In the 80's beer was broken off and is allowed to be sold by licensed distributer, but wine and hard stuff may still only be sold by the state itself, through its wholly-state-owned chain of stores.  The state makes buttload of money in this deal, but consumers get the shaft in selection.  Prices are not so bad, but the selection is very poor.

This bar got raided for selling beer it bought completely legally from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board-licensed distributer, and half of what was confiscated was legal, the PLCB and the State Police where too incompetent to tell the difference!

"My main beef with this whole convoluted situation is that the PLCB is the sole regulator of a set of products that they do not even know the names of," she said.

I'd be pretty beefed, too.

Maida said that the couple's attorney had told them that they have until 6 p.m. tonight to compile evidence to prove that the confiscated beer is properly registered.

"The onus is on us to prove our innocence," she said.

If that's not police statism, I don't know what is.  Confiscate thousands of dollar's worth of vital inventory form a business that's done nothing illegal, then tell them they have hours to prove it.

She added: "It's McCarthy-like. [She obviously has no damned idea what that means.  I assume she's a Democrat.  AWM] They swarm in here and confiscate this product because they don't know what the product is."

The very idea that a brewery has to register names of beers to sell them in PA is beyond stupid.  As long as the taxes are paid, who cares?  Not only that, but by the time this is sorted out all the beer will probably have gone bad.  I hope to God they sue the PLCB.  I'm not a drinking man but I will go there and raise a glass if they do, win or loose.

The UK Telegraph blows Obama and the American MSM away

→ The Annoyed White Male | 8 Mar 2010 | 10:52 am MST

Read this awesome blasting:

Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen.

It's good news for those of us that want him to fail.

One senior black politician – a Democrat and a supporter of the President – told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people.

He's supposed to help his own people.  If a White politician were spoken about that way....

For a land without a welfare state, America starts to do an effective impersonation of a country with one. This massive state spending gives rise to accusations by Republicans, and people too angry even to be Republicans,[That's us.  Em. by AWM] that America is now controlled by "Leftists" and being turned into a socialist state.

Yup.  And your point is.....?

"Obama's big problem," a senior Democrat told me, "is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN." The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day:

The reason for this is it's the only place anyone can get anything negative about Obama.  The MSM is still bowing in worship.  So allow me to translate this unnamed "senior Democrat": "Obama's big problem is that people aren't feeding on the Obama-worship CNN is offering, they are actually able to choose another source for information".

Mr Obama benefited in his campaign from an idiotic level of idolatry, in which most of the media participated with an astonishing suspension of cynicism. The sound of the squealing of brakes is now audible all over the American press; but the attack is being directed not at the leader himself, but at those around him.

For now, rather than admit they did nothing to vet Obama and everything to elect him, they will try to blame his underlings.  Sooner or later the press will stop blaming the people he picked and realize the problem is him.  At that point, they'll catch up to the growing number of The People that knew it a long time ago.

craigslist Post of the Day: IKEA Jerker

→ The Annoyed White Male | 7 Mar 2010 | 8:42 am MST

Ikea Jerker, the greatest desk Ever Made (19460)

Date: 2010-03-06, 6:33PM EST
Reply to: sale-e2r2j-1631988669@craigslist.org ^{[Errors when replying to ads?]}

You may know about the cult following of the Jerker. Well I have 2 of them. I'm keeping one, I'm moving. You get the other one.
This one has moved with me twice so it has some packing tape marks on it. It also MAY NOT have every single bolt, but then again it may. I just dont know. I am a mere mortal.
It costs NOTHING. It's free. But only if you act now. It's outside my house. Right now. Come on, stop reading this ad, get in the car and drive like someone's in labor in the back seat.
Drive safely please.

Located outside my house, 830 E Philip Dr, Phoenixville, PA, 19460.

If you doubt the majesty of this desk, don't, because here it is with enough computing power to drive a space mission running on it.
This is the very same desk which is now outside my house. (the desk on the right, the 2 tiered desk only).

I can't hold it for you because it needs to go TONIGHT and i've been moving all day and now I am going to be out for a few hours.
So I leave it at the mercy of the same Internet it has served for many years, like a loving servant desk.

• Location: 19460
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

WE'VE MOVED!

→ The Other McCain | 2 Jan 2010 | 2:29 am MST

TheOtherMcCain.com

How Carlsonism Was Averted, or The Making of TheOtherMcCain.com

→ The Other McCain | 1 Jan 2010 | 9:34 pm MST

New Site for a New Year: We're Now LIVE at TheOtherMcCain.com

→ The Other McCain | 31 Dec 2009 | 10:01 pm MST

Tweet of the Year Decade Millennium: My Quest for the Ultimate Re-Tweet

→ The Other McCain | 31 Dec 2009 | 11:11 am MST

Your quest to get re-tweeted by @Alyssa_Milano is the best non-porn thing about the internet.
-- Dave Weigel

She's the ultimate celebrity Tweep, with more than 500,000 followers but, as of noon today, was only following 499 people, whereas I've got about 2,700 followers and am following nearly 1,300 people.

This illustrates an enormous status disparity and ever since October, when Alyssa re-Tweeted a Slate column by Mickey Kaus -- who has about 1,700 followers -- I've been trying to reverse-engineer the Kaus magic: "Why Does Alyssa Milano Hate Me?"

Alyssa is to Twitter what Matt Drudge is to news, and what Professor Glenn Reynolds is to blogging. (On Twitter, Drudge has 46,000 followers and Instapundit has about 6,000 followers.) People tell me that my quest is hopeless, but as Vince Lombardi said, "A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits."

In addition to Lombardi's maxim, there's also the inspiration of my role model, Pepe Le Pew:

The wonderful thing about Pepe is that he cannot conceive that anyone would not love him.

Hit the tip jar! ROLL TIDE! Re-Tweet me, Alyssa!

2009 Year in Review: January

→ The Other McCain | 31 Dec 2009 | 9:50 am MST

Just as the conservative intellectuals once projected their hopes onto Dubya, now they project their disappointments onto Sarah. But the fault is theirs, not hers.

It is a very long post, but I think it got to the nub of some very important issues that are fundamental to understanding how the GOP reached its ebb in 2008. Some other highlights and lowlights of the month:

• January 2009 saw Israel at war with Palestinians, which prompted my reflection "Sonny Corleone in Gaza."
• Natalie Dylan offered her virginity online and was offered $3.7 million.
• Of course, January marked the official onset of the Obama Nation, which was inaugurated with puddles of hope. I compared it to the experience of taking my daughter to Bush's 2001 inauguration.
• The biggest problem of the new administration was its economic agenda: Unicorns, rainbows and wasteful neo-Keynesian nonsense.
• I covered the RNC meeting that culminated in the election of Michael Steele as chairman.
• January also brought news of the Hindenburg-at-Lakehurst implosion of Culture 11, a not-unexpected disaster that could be explained in two words: David Kuo. Or perhaps, Conor Friedersdorf.