See? Civilian Trials Do Work.

The Holder Justice Department has proven its mettle. They told us that civilian trials for terrorists were a good thing, and that they were absolutely sure they could get convictions. And by God, they were true to their word. On Wednesday, a civilian jury convicted former Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani of conspiracy to destroy buildings and property belonging to the United States. Victory is ours!

Or is it? Ghailani was convicted of a relatively minor felony, and will face sentencing of a minimum of twenty years (much of which will not be served in prison). How did Holder's boys do on this case? Well, they got a conviction on 1/285th of the charges against Ghailani, which included 224 murder counts. That's a rate of 0.3%. And the Holder boys argued the case so well, including jury instructions, that the dumb-ass jury was able to conclude that Ghailani conspired to commit mass murder and mayhem, but didn't know enough of the details to be convicted of any of the results of those conspiracies.

Ghailani, who is an enemy combatant, was involved in the Dar es Salaam bombing in Tanzania (his home country) and the US Embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya (Obama's home country?). In total, 224 humans perished, including 12 American citizens. Over 4,500 people were seriously injured. If Ghailani had been convicted of one--just one--of the murders, he would have been facing a life sentence.

And the Holder boys were really good at judge shopping. They found the most liberal non-constitutionalist "make it up as you go along" judge available at the time. You might be able to guess where the judge is coming from based on his expression of gratitude to the jurors. Normally, a judge says something like "the jury is thanked and excused from further duty." In a particularly knotty case, the judge might also thank them for their patience and attention in such a difficult matter. That wasn't enough for US District Judge Lewis Kaplan in the matter of this Manhattan jury. Said Kaplan: "You deserve a lot of credit. You have demonstrated also that American justice can be delivered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people--people who are not beholden to any government, including this one."

I'll sleep better at night knowing that. How about you? This ass-hat not only thanked the jury, but got a chance to take a slap at the American people, common decency, clear evidence, and the amateurs who "prosecuted" the case. I do have to admit that this was a result of Biblical proportions. In my busy criminal defense practice I never got a not guilty verdict on 284 out of 285 counts in any case. In fact, I'm not sure I got 284 not guilty verdicts in my first ten years of practice, and I had one of the best defense records in a very pro-prosecution county.

Even on the facts, evidence and testimony the jury was allowed to hear, there should have been guilty verdicts for at least 224 of the counts simply because of their finding of guilty on the conspiracy charge. But the defense argued so well, and the prosecution prepared so poorly that the jury was left with the idea that a conspirator who knew all the details that formed the conspiracy didn't contemplate the bloody deaths the conspiracy would produce. Shades of Lee Harvey Oswald, they bought the defense argument that Ghailani was merely a patsy. And based on lousy jury instructions, they believed that a dupe couldn't be guilty of mass murder (if he was actually a dupe at all).

But they didn't get to hear extremely damning evidence and testimony that tied him not only to the conspiracy, but to active participation in the actual carrying-out of the plots. That was because a liberal judge, following the liberal line of civilian jurisprudence, excluded the testimony of an interrogator who had used enhanced interrogation techniques which were both legal and acceptable at the time of the interrogation. But we civilians are so damned civilized that we must recoil in horror at a little rough interrogation while "finding the best" in mass murder. That's the American way. Aw, hooey!

Without objection from the "prosecutors," Kaplan instructed the jury that Ghailani had to be proven to have known "at least one of the unlawful objectives of the conspiracy," and that they must also find that "prosecutors proved the defendant voluntarily and intentionally participated in the venture as something he wished to do." The latter half is not a standard jury instruction, and the "prosecution" should have demanded an instruction that if the jury found that the defendant entered knowingly into the conspiracy, then ipso facto they must find him guilty of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy--in other words, the murders. Only an idiot would believe that if you conspire to place explosives in heavily trafficked or highly-populated locations, multiple deaths will not ensue.

And the "intent" was not properly instructed on. One need not intend consciously to kill large numbers of people by setting off huge explosions. This is what is called "implied malice" or such a reckless and wanton disregard of the consequences of the intended act as to rise to the level of intent to kill. Planning on blowing up a rural post office where the plotters thought there would be nobody in the building at night has been found to be murder, even though all that was "intended" was a political protest. A trio of drunks were found guilty of murder for firing rifles into the windows of a moving passenger train "just for the fun of scaring people." The intent was to scare, the result was two deaths, and the conviction for murder was upheld.

With the help of the judge's instructions and the lethargy of the "prosecutors," the jury found the terrorist guilty of the conspiracy to "blow up buildings" during business hours, but couldn't make the connection to the unlawful homicides with the malice aforethought that went with that conspiracy. I've seen tougher judges and more competent prosecutors in municipal court cases where the charge was accessory to a trespass. A foul and inhuman mass murderer has been given a slap on the wrist for 224 human deaths. The deaths of people literally blown to pieces or so horribly maimed and injured that they didn't survive surgery and the best efforts of the medical profession.

Would the result have been any different in a military tribunal? The answer to that is about 99 and 44/100ths percent "yes." The testimony and evidence produced by the government interrogator would have come in. No touchy-feely "we're too civilized for that" crap, since the interrogation was both legal and commonplace at the time. No Obama-like sympathy for the "victim" (who is actually the perpetrator) and the "rule of law" which most assuredly was not the rule of law at the time of the interrogation. Kaplan applied current interrogation rules foisted on the military and intelligence agencies by the Obama-Holder deadly duo to an event that occurred long before those rules were imposed.

In addition, there was considerable "top secret" information which could have been used in the military court, but was not presented in the civilian trial since nobody from the judge to the court stenographer can be trusted to keep a secret for more than three minutes. We'll probably never know how damning that evidence would have been. Still it's likely a very safe bet that the testimony would have established a pattern of action (modus operandi) in multiple related matters that would tie the defendant directly to both conspiracies that worked and conspiracies thwarted because of the evidence obtained.

In case you're interested in the testimony that was suppressed, one of the "prosecutors" tried to call Hussein Ababe as a witness. Judge Kaplan would not allow the testimony in because Ababe, who admitted to selling five crates of TNT to Ghailani just before the Dar es Salaam attack was first named by Ghailani during an enhanced interrogation conducted by the CIA. The cocksure "prosecutor" had called Ababe a "giant and critical witness who would tie Ghailani directly to the murders and prove Ghailani's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." After fumbling the motion to suppress, the "prosecutors" were left with a moderately strong but almost entirely circumstantial case.

So now we're left with an Obama administration that wants to close Guantanamo and a Holder Justice Department that could best be described as the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Dismissing the Black Panther voter intimidation cases was a political disaster and a miscarriage of justice. But at least nobody was actually maimed or killed. Blowing a case of mass murder because of the arrogance of an incompetent Attorney General who is too good to try cases in a military tribunal is the worst kind of dereliction of duty. Holder should get his walking papers before a liberal civilian judge and twelve morons convict Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of conspiracy to litter while dismissing all terrorism and murder charges against him in his 9/11 trial.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Fails His First Test Already

Obama has now faced his first test since the election. He failed spectacularly. Not only did he show that he learned nothing from the election and that he would continue to put rigid ideology ahead of results, but he roused the suspicions of his base in the process. Indeed, George Soros is talking about progressives needing to “go around” Obama. That’s a lot of failure to achieve in one week.

The issue in question is whether or not to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Last week, Obama puppeteer David Axelrod suggested to the Huffington Post that Obama would agree to a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” in exchange for making the cuts permanent for families with incomes below $250,000 a year.

This set off a firestorm of progressive anger. Not only do progressives not want any tax cuts for the filthy rich, but they can barely stomach the idea of tax cuts for anyone. When they heard that Obama was going to sell them out, they were not amused.

Congressional Democrats were angry too. They thought Axelrod’s statement undermined their bargaining position with the Republicans before the talks even began. After all, if Obama announces that he is willing to meet the Republicans half way, then surely the Republicans now would demand more?

Obama responded, a couple days later, by holding a telephone conference with his left flank, in which he told them that he is “open to ideas, but fundamentally the middle-class tax cuts have to be made permanent.” Then he repeated his “opposition to making the high income tax cuts permanent.” That seemed pretty clear. Only it wasn’t.

The following day, a White House spokeswoman issued a statement saying: “His position has been clear for weeks and he reiterated his interest in a compromise to ensure middle class families have the certainty their taxes will not go up.” In other words, forget all that stuff Obama assured the Democrats about, he will happily trade a tax cut for the rich for an extension of the middle class portion of the tax cut. This is the Axelrod position which upset the Democrats so much.

Thus, Obama angered Congressional Democrats by undercutting them, and he angered his base by calling into question what he really believes by issuing ambiguous contradictory statements. Could he really be willing to cut taxes on the stinking rich (forget for the moment that these aren’t tax cuts, they are instead a halt on tax increases). Grrrrrr. What’s next, a bank bailout?

At the same time, Obama’s vocal opposition to “tax cuts for the rich” showed the public that he didn’t listen to the election. Love the rich or loathe them, it is beyond dispute (unless you’re a liar like Paul Krugman) that raising taxes on the rich will depress the economy, something which would be very stupid to do at a time when the economy is teetering on the edge of a possible double-dip recession. Thus, by seeming to take a hard line against these tax cuts, Obama signaled the public that he intends to put his ideology ahead of intelligent economics. And if the election truly was about the economy as the Democrats claim, then this signal was aimed straight at the very heart of what has upset the public.

Ironically, for once, Obama actually has his finger on good politics. If he agrees to the whole tax cut package right now, then he may stave off a double dip recession and he can avoid an obvious spot of potential blame, i.e. “he caused this by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.” And if he can get a temporary extension for the rich but a permanent extension for the middle class, then Obama has actually managed to lay a bit of a trap for Republicans, who will need to come back in the future to seek an extension for the rich only. But his base won’t accept this because his dithering and ambiguity have made them suspicious about his true beliefs.

Thus, he’s turned what could be a win for him into a stunning defeat with all sides now angry at him. Not smart.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Socialism (Is) For Dummies

Let’s talk about an issue that came up in the comments the other day. Leftists don’t understand why the private market is the only sane way to run an economy. In fact, they love the idea of pointy-headed experts "organizing" the economy. But does this make any sense? Let me ask a few questions and then you tell me.

Question 1: A hamburger is a fairly easy product to make, right? After all, it contains few ingredients, there are no hidden tricks, it requires no ultra complex high-tech equipment, and its appeal is well-known.

Question 2: Tell me everything that goes into making a hamburger.

Easy right? Beef, some mustard, some bread, maybe an onion and a little labor to put the whole thing together. Simple. But that’s not everything, is it? Where does the beef come from? That’s right, a cattle ranch. So a hamburger requires a cattle ranch. And of course, that means it needs farm labor. And they need cattle feed, which comes from somewhere too. They also need trucks to get the cows to the slaughterhouse.

Hmmm. . . trucks. Wow, what all goes into making a truck? Well, let’s skip that for now. To make the slaughterhouse, you need a building, which means construction equipment, which means a metal foundry, which means chemicals and raw minerals. Since those are usually overseas, that means ships, which means docks. I wonder how big the ships should be? And what's this I hear about mining equipment?

But back to the slaughterhouse. They use metal equipment, which means machine tools, and more minerals. It also mean electricity to keep those plants running. . . not everyone has Boiler Elves. And of course, they need refrigeration, which is another whole industry. And let’s not forget the labor to make these tools, dig the minerals, construct the ports, the roads, the farms, and design all of it.

Suddenly, a simple hamburger doesn't seem so simple does it? And we’ve only scratched the surface, haven’t we? Don’t forget that we never delved too deeply into secondary products like what it takes to make that pesky truck. . . what the heck is a solenoid anyways? Nor did we talk about how to price these goods or to make sure that there is labor at each step, or that the labor has homes and can get their hands on food and electricity and water and sanitation and health care and transportation and. . .

If it’s this difficult to get a simple hamburger into your hands, how hard do you think it will be to design an entire economy that provides for the needs of 300 million American citizens? What happens if you forget to carry the one somewhere in your equation of the American people? Is it any wonder that bread lines are a common symptom of socialist countries, i.e. "command economies"?

Hopefully, you see the point of this exercise. Just looking at the complexity of this seemingly simple product, it should be obvious that a panel of even the pointiest-headed experts could never be up to the task of "organizing" our economy. And they certainly couldn't do it as well as the 300 million Americans who make a trillion decisions every day about what resources to spend on what and at what price?

And if they aren't up to making a hamburger, why should we think they're any better at "organizing" something larger. . . like the health care system?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (Non-Existent) Republican Civil War

Ladies and gentlemen, the end is near for the Republican Party. That’s right. The noble elephant has split asunder, cleaved in two. Conservative brother is fighting conservative brother in the streets. Wait a minute, that’s not true. So why do I keep reading about Republican “civil wars”? Oh yeah, media bias.

The media has two modes for the Republicans. When things are going poorly for the Republicans, we are treated to a slew of stories telling us that the Republicans are an extremist bunch (with only the occasional brave dissenter) whose ideology has turned off the public, and that they need to move to the left to regain the public's trust. But when things go right for the Republicans, the media switches over to the other mode: the Republicans are in the middle of a civil war that will tear the party apart.

Right now, we've re-entered civil war mode. Indeed, in the past week, we’ve had stories on the “civil war” in the RNC over Michael Steele, the “civil war” between the Tea Party Republicans and the establishment Republicans, the “civil war” in the Senate between DeMint and the country clubbers, the “civil war” over presidential candidates in 2012, the “civil war” over Palin, the “civil war” over leadership positions, and now the “civil war” over committee chairmanships. The use of the term “civil war” has almost become pathological.

Yet, none of these are civil wars. There is no threat to shatter the party. There are no two equal and opposing forces ready to wipe each other out no matter what the consequences. Instead, you have normal election issues. You’ve got a handful of incumbents who lost their seats. You’ve got newbies who are slightly to the right of existing members, and they want to shift the party back to the foundations the party itself claims. You’ve got committee people scrambling for power, as they always do. And you will have a competitive presidential primary coming up, just like every other primary that doesn’t include an incumbent President.

What’s more, you have a leadership that at least verbally has embraced a shift to the right; they haven’t drawn a line in the sand or threatened to stop the newcomers. To the contrary, they’ve gone out of their way to promote some of these newcomers. You’ve also got a rank and file that are largely unified behind a return to a stronger brand of conservatism -- a more unified rank and file than anything I’ve seen in my lifetime.

This simply does not a civil war make.

A real political civil war looks like the Democrats in 1968, when old-school Democrats were surrounded at their convention by the lunatic fringe and the police had to be called out. A real political civil war was when Reagan took on the establishment in 1980, and the Rockefeller wing of the party actually ran a Republican as an independent just to deprive the conservatives of a victory. There is nothing similar today.

So why does the media keep calling every disagreement among Republicans a civil war? Ideological bias.

The media is composed almost entirely of far-left leftists, and they want the Republicans to fail. Thus, they report on Republican “scandals” as if they are systemic and as if they are the end of the world, while giving Democrats a free pass on identical conduct. They look for the wackiest, tackiest Republicans to provide them with a steady stream of bizarre and outrageous sound bites, which they sell as commonly held beliefs among the party faithful. . . something they never do to Democrats.

And when it comes to any sort of competition for ideas or people within the party, they frame the issue as the beginning of the end for the Republicans. . . an intractable civil war. Why? Because they are hoping this demoralizes the party. They hope the rank and file will distrust the leadership because of the constant barrage of stories about infighting. They hope independents will see the Republicans as a party in turmoil, where nasty extremists keep fighting to purge noble moderates. They hope to muddy the message of the party, by pretending there are two equal sides fighting, when the truth is that the “moderate” side in the “civil war” is only a handful of corrupt insiders or people who are well outside the mainstream of Republican thinking. And they hope it's true.

Moreover, to the extent there has been a civil war within either party over the past decade, it was within the Democrats, as the “progressive” left all but wiped out the center-left that Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council put into place. But somehow this never rates the descriptor “civil war” among a sympathetic media. Instead, you hear about the occasional “insurgent” within Democratic ranks. . . a term used again today to describe the few Democrats trying to unseat Pelosi. The difference between a civil war and an insurgent is the difference between the image of a party split in two and set against itself, versus a few sneaks who are trying to overthrow a settled regime.

So if you see more talk about another Republican “civil war,” don’t believe it. This is simply leftist bias and a little wishful thinking. The party is undergoing a very calm and widely approved of shift to the right. And the replacement of a few establishment types who don’t fit that new approach does not constitute a civil war.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

California's Own DREAM Act Upheld

On Monday, November 15, the California Supreme Court upheld the right of illegal immigrant residents to pay the same tuition at California public colleges and universities as legal California residents, and therefore less than legal residents of other states who want to attend the California State Colleges and Universities or the more prestigious University of California.

In order to understand the decision, remember that the decision revolved around residency, not citizenship (which is another issue entirely). Let me say in advance that nobody hates this decision more than I. But hating a decision and hating the reasoning and law behind the decision are not the same thing. I commend the California Supreme Court for refusing to do what the United States Supreme Court has routinely done--legislate from the bench. The decision was unanimous. The liberals on the court no doubt love the idea of confirming rights for those who have entered our nation and our state illegally. Their concurring opinions indicate exactly that. But the decision was written by the conservative Chief Justice Ming Chin and represented the opinions of the conservative majority of the high court.

Reaction to the decision throughout the conservative blogging community is largely one of anger at the court. That anger is misplaced. The conservative majority did exactly what we strict constructionists and believers in judicial restraint hold dear. More importantly, conservative thinkers cannot believe in judicial restraint only when it suits our purposes. What the California court did was read the applicable California statutes, consider precedent, determine how they applied under the California and federal Constitutions, and held that the California law did not distinguish between legal and illegal residents. As hateful as that is, it is the correct law.

So where should the misplaced anger actually be directed? That is much easier to explain than the difficult result in the court case. California has been the leader on the national road to ruin on many fronts, and this issue is no exception. While conservatives and many moderates nationwide are fiercely opposing the loathsome DREAM Act that Harry Reid wants to shove down our collective throats, California passed its own version of that act back in 2001. The heavily Democrat-controlled Assembly and state Senate found it more important to discriminate against legal citizens of other American states than it did to make it clear that the tuition/residency requirement was to be applied to both legal and illegal immigrants residing in California. Democratic Governor Gray Davis agreed.

California law allows in-state tuition for all those who have resided in California for at least three years and graduate from a California high school. Chief Justice Chin was grim as he announced that the 2001 law does not conflict with federal law regarding immigration and residency. "It cannot be the case that states may never give a benefit to unlawful aliens without giving the same benefit to all American citizens." As a practical matter, that's horrible. The decision essentially says that illegals who have complied with the residency requirement even though living here illegally cannot have greater benefits than those from other states who have complied with the same residency requirement.

That means, legally speaking rather than practically, if the Smith family in Connecticut wants to be on an equal footing with the Martinez family of Chihuahua who are living in California illegally, all the Smiths have to do is send their children to live with Aunt Maude in California for three years of high school. The Martinez and Smith kids will now all qualify for in-state tuition. As ridiculous as that may be in real life, it is an accurate reading of California law. Break up American families in Connecticut so that illegals in California can stay together and benefit from liberal pro-illegal immigration policies.

The illogic of the practical analysis is summed up by pro-immigrant Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) general counsel and spokesman Thomas A. Saenz: "This law makes higher education affordable for so many students who have the added difficulty of not being eligible for federal financial aid." Get it? The California and federal law prohibit financial aid for illegals, so the only way they can afford to attend our tax-funded California institutions of higher learning is to pretend their illegal status means nothing in relation to residency requirements.

And just in case you're wondering how much money that might involve: A natural-born American citizen in Connecticut who comes to California to attend a California public college or university will pay considerably more for tuition than the illegal immigrant. At the State Colleges and Universities, that would be about a $12,000 per year difference. At the elite schools in the University of California system such as Berkeley and UCLA, it comes closer to $20,000 per annum. State and federal funds are not available to pay the lower tuition for the illegals, but on the other hand MALDEF doesn't give scholarships and grants to non-Hispanics.

So this is really a case of don't shoot the messenger. The California court did its duty and followed its oath to be a respecter of law and not of persons. Don't make the mistake of thinking they were happy about being placed in that position. Save your ire for the California Democratic legislature and former governor, and prepare yourselves for the oncoming battle against the federal DREAM Act. California's proto-DREAM Act conformed itself to federal standards by disallowing public funds to be used to assist illegals gaming the educational system by maintaining California residency. Reid's monstrous federal DREAM Act has no such compunctions.

There is only one way Californians could change the result of the state Supreme Court decision. I'm not holding my breath. California is heavily Democrat, and Hispanics now comprise more than half the students in California public schools. Needless to say, a huge proportion of those students are here illegally. California could follow the lead of Arizona and a few other states and defy the illegal immigrant enthusiasts in Congress by changing its residency requirement vis a vis college tuition to specifically exclude illegal immigrants from the residency formula.

If such a change were to be made to the California constitution, and if the California court found that law to be valid on adequate independent state grounds (quite likely), then like gay marriage the matter would be tossed back into the federal court system. Such a state ruling would on its face raise the issue of whether the state's right to protect its own citizens and their investment in their home state is trumped by the federal government's allegedly exclusive control over immigration law. I'm not making any bets on how that might go or what reasoning the federal courts might use.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Here They Go Again. . .

Is the Presidency too big for one man? Hardly. The Presidency works fine, just as Reagan proved with his stunning successes at the very moment the left was asking this same exact question in response to brainiac Jimmy Carter’s utter failure. So why do leftists keep asking this? Two reasons: first, this is a defense mechanism, and secondly, they don’t like or understand our system of government.

Whenever a liberal super-genius fails, the left needs to find a reason. They won’t blame their ideology, no matter how much history there is showing its total failure. But they will blame almost everything else. For example, we’ve heard them blame their opponents for frustrating their efforts. We’ve heard them spin conspiracy theories about special interest groups or corporate cabals intentionally trying to ruin things (Pelosi is the latest to claim that she’s being attacked because she’s dangerous to “special interests”. . . yeah, Boogieman Inc.). And we’ve heard them blame the ignorant masses -- an Obama specialty.

But that’s often not enough.

Eventually, leftists will get around to burning down their latest Messiahs. To keep themselves from having to reassess whether or not their own beliefs make sense, they will instead attack the person they relied upon to implement those beliefs. This is where the common liberal lunatic refrain “we just need the right leader to put these policies in place” comes from. This is why they can continue to believe in socialism despite its track record of 100% failure and its body count in the hundreds of millions. . . "it wasn’t the ideas, it was the jerks who put those ideas into practice the wrong way."

But sometimes, leftists aren’t ready yet to turn on their Messiahs. So they seek a middle ground: “there is something just wrong with the system.” This lets them continue in their delusions that their policies are not to blame for the current disasters and also that they didn’t choose the wrong Messiah. Hence, every time some liberal Messiah fails, you hear a round of “is the Presidency too big for one man?” (You may recall we told you this was coming in September.) Newsweek is the latest to ask this question.

The truth is that the Presidency is not too big. Reagan proved it. Clinton proved it. Others will continue to prove it. Obama’s failure, just like Carter’s failure, does not mean the job is too big. Obama’s failure was not the result of anything inherently wrong with the job, it was what he tried to do with the job.

And this brings us to the other reason the left repeatedly raises this question. They don’t really grasp what the Presidency is, i.e. the job is not designed to reach the kinds of results the left wants. The President is a check and balance on the power of the legislature. The President’s job is to approve or disapprove laws, and then to enforce those laws strictly. But the left doesn’t get that. They see the Presidency as some sort of enlightened despot position, where an all powerful President delves into every minute detail of everything happening in the country. They want a President who can remake the economy, remake society, and remake the human soul with the swipe of a pen.

But the President can’t do any of that. Thus, when they finally get someone into office, they are disappointed that the despot they elected never seems to get around to making them thinner, happier or richer, making their kids smarter, or crushing the people they hold grudges against. . . "why have you forsaken me Mr. President?"

What’s worse, things always go wrong when their guy gets into office: incomes drop, unemployment soars, foreign countries laugh at us and take advantage of us, and the public gets angrier and angrier. And to them, this seems like a strange coincidence because they will never accept that their policies of raising taxes, imposing strangling regulation, and showing cowardice to our enemies are responsible for these problems. . . "no, must be something wrong with the job itself?"

This is why liberals wonder if the Presidency isn’t too big of a job for one person. They elect the smartest man on earth, he gets his policies into place, and suddenly everything turns sour. And no matter what the President tries to fix this, no matter how many magic beads he shakes, things just keep getting worse. Since there’s nothing wrong with their policies. . . and they didn’t choose the wrong despot to be their leader. . . there must be something wrong with the job itself, right?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

New Boss Same As The Old Boss

“We didn’t lose the election because of me. Our members do not accept that.”
-- Nancy Pelosi

“That is why you failed.”
-- Yoda

As predicted, the House Democrats will re-elected Nancy Pelosi as their leader. Clearly they learned nothing from the election. Nevertheless, there are a couple of interesting aspects to this whole affair, including the possible future of Heath Shuler. Who?

1. The Democrats lost because of Pelosi.

The Democrats got into power and ran wild. During the election, Obama tried to sell himself as a break with the crazy tribal politics of the Democratic Party. Pelosi and her crew tried to sound like moderates too, attacking the Republicans as big spenders and as the party that wants to tax the middle class. And Rham Emanuel ran around the country trying to find conservatives to run as Democrats in Republican districts.

So you can imagine the public was somewhat surprised when the House, under Pelosi’s leadership, tried to tax the economy to death, spend the budget to death, strangle our health care system to death, and breathe life back into the most malicious zombie of them all. . . the unions. What’s more, they did this even though they knew the Senate would stop almost all of it, and even though they knew Obama had no stomach to offer them political cover.

The public was not amused and they took it out on the Democrats in November. Indeed, the public inflicted an historic defeat on Pelosi and her crew. Pelosi wants to blame the economy, but if it was just the economy, then the Senate also would have experienced an historic change. . . it didn’t. Moreover, Pelosi doesn’t seem to understand that she bears the responsibility for the economy. Having two years under Obama and four years under Pelosi to impose economic policy tends to give one that responsibility.

2. The Democrats are heading in the wrong direction.

With almost all the moderate Democrats losing their seats, the Democrats were always going to have a hard time realizing what went wrong and correcting themselves. Those that remain are blinded by ideology The re-election of Pelosi to their leadership (indeed the reelection of the entire leadership without change) and the disclaiming of any responsibility for their defeat indicate that they have not heard a word of the message the voters sent them. Thus, expect them to move further left and continue to scare the public.

And for those who point to the Republicans’ rebound in 2010 as evidence that Pelosi could rebound, let me point out a problem with the analogy. The Republicans were weighed down by a deeply unpopular President in 2008 and a horrible candidate. But by 2010, both of those factors had disappeared and the Republicans actually caught a tailwind from an unpopular Democratic President. Pelosi et al., on the other hand, will still be weighed down by Obama in 2012 and possibly 2016.

3. The Very Strange Case of Heath Shuler.

Finally, we come to the strange move by Heath Shuler. Shuler, for those who don’t know, is a Democratic Representative from North Carolina. Before that, he was famous for being the Washington Redskins’ draft bust who head butted a wall on national television and injured himself. Shuler is running against Pelosi for the leadership even though he has no chance to win. Why do this?

Several thoughts come to mind. First, North Carolina will be redistricting and he may find himself with more Republicans in his new district. It will help him to have stood up to Pelosi. But here’s some speculation for you. . .

When Shuler first ran for the House, the media asked a couple of his ex-teammates what they thought of his run. One teammate, his former roommate for road games, said that he were surprised Schuler ran as a Democrat because Shuler was ultra conservative. It is true that Shuler has not fully lived up to that in the House, but he is one of the more conservative Democrats. And in a state that is slowly trending Republican, and with the Republicans controlling redistricting, Shuler may be the first House member to jump parties. Indeed, little about him fits in the current Democratic Party, except that being a Democrat was the only way he was going to get elected in 2008. So what better springboard than to make a run at the leadership on behalf of returning the party to the center, and then jumping ship when he “reluctantly” concludes that the party has left him and will never return?

It’s just a thought, but it makes sense. And here’s a further thought. . . if he pulls it off, look for Shuler to run for President as a Republican at some point.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Time Marches On Bill Maher

A little over a week ago, unfunny comedian and ignorant but opinionated HBO star Bill Maher offered his assessment of the November 2 rejection of the Democratic Party. His conclusion? He concluded that since blue dog Democrats lost and leftists Democrats won, the answer to why the Democrats lost big time is that they didn't move far enough to the left fast enough.

"What does this [the huge loss] tell you?" asked Maher rhetorically. "You know, it tells me that this election was lost when Obama didn't back the public option [on health care]. To me, that was the one key thing that said to the people--You know what? This is no different than the Al Gore Democrats, the old Al Gore playbook. 'Let's run from our achievements. And let's not stand for what we believe in.'"

Somewhat surprisingly, Maher was challenged by the editor-at-large of Time Magazine, Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria was one of Maher's guests on his HBO show Real Time. Well, Time got real. Using the same sarcastic tone for which his host is famous, Zakaria retorted with: "It's difficult to imagine independents saying 'I'm gonna vote for extremely right-wing Republicans because Obama wasn't left-wing enough'--I think it's more plausible to say that they perceived, rightly or wrongly, that Obama had moved too far left. Fundamentally, 85% of the country has healthcare and worries about costs. 15% doesn't and worries about access. What Obama did was, he dealt with the issue of the 15% before he dealt with the issue of the 85%."

Although Zakaria characterized conservatives as "far right wing" and used the weasel-words "rightly or wrongly," this editor of a very liberal magazine laid Maher out. And that was while neglecting to mention that the concerns of the 85% were exacerbated by the passage of Obamacare, while the needs of the 15% were left largely untouched. In other words, Zakaria, a man of the left, analyzed Maher's conclusion from Maher's right. And his assessment made Maher's look very foolish. Zakaria was not willing to think that Democrats were choosing suicide by electing Republicans, including Tea Party candidates. They were simply saying, "we reject socialism."

Many Democrats love socialism, but as many do not. Much of the Democratic base is union labor. Even though the union bosses took their dues to promote socialism in very expensive campaign ads, nearly half of union workers voted to stop the march of Marx by voting for the other party. "Labor" is not nearly as leftist as "Big Labor Bosses."

Andrew Stern, the longtime leader of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and former bedmate at Barack Obama's White House, may spout "worker's of the world unite," but most plain union workers think Marx was a jerk, and vote on bread and butter issues rather than social philosophy. This time, nearly half thought that they were likely to run out of both bread and butter if the marching Obamists were not stopped in their tracks.

Zakaria, unlike Maher, picked up on all of this. He is able to distinguish between his own personal opinions and those of the elections he is analyzing. I don't think for one minute that Zakaria wanted the Democrats to lose. But he was able to do what Maher wasn't--step back, suppress his personal feelings, and look at what the real meaning of the Republican surge meant. And he concluded that moderate-conservative Democrats along with independents joined conservative Republicans in saying plainly: "Obama, the House and the Senate, are too far left." Poor Bill Maher still doesn't get it.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Sherlock

The BBC has a recent history of producing very entertaining, high-quality programs. Everything from the new Doctor Who to Top Gear have been smashing successes worldwide. High production qualities, top notch acting, and quality writing have abounded. Even some of their misses have been better than anything on American television today, like Primeval and Apparitions. The new PBS Masterpiece Mystery program Sherlock, a BBC production, easily continues that tradition.

Sherlock is a three part series that is written by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, and directed by Paul McGuigan and Euros Lyn. This is the team responsible for the best Doctor Who episodes, including The Empty Child, The Beast Below, The Time of Angels, The Girl In The Fireplace, and Silence in the Library, as well as Torchwood Children of Earth. They also wrote the Victorian Era episode The Unquiet Dead. Moffat also previously adapted The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde into the 2007 series Jekyll. So this is an impressive pedigree, and they don’t disappoint.

Modern adaptations of Sherlock Holmes are difficult, almost by definition, because Holmes is so associated in our minds with Victorian times. The way he speaks, his habits, his style of reasoning, his relationship with others are all deeply Victorian, as are the types of crimes and criminals he pursues. Indeed, prior to this series, I suspected that his very essence was uniquely Victorian and probably could not be brought outside of that era. But this new production proves that wrong.

What is truly striking about Sherlock is just how well they capture the essence that is Holmes. They kept his superior intelligence and his incredible ability to deduct stunning (yet obvious once you hear them) conclusions from minute details that you or I would otherwise miss. But even more importantly, they’ve managed to keep the balance between Holmes’ amazing ability to understand everyone around him instantly, against his inability to relate to anyone. Indeed, despite his almost omniscient grasp of human nature, he seems strangely incapable of dealing with others on any personal level. And it’s not clear if Holmes is a pathologically introverted character who offsets his problem with extreme arrogance, or if his “bored genius” makes him a “high-functioning sociopath,” as Holmes describes himself. This is classic Holmes.

Moreover, they have done a stellar job of maintaining the relationship between Holmes and Watson without giving in to modern "sensibilities." Indeed, at a time when it has become popular to suggest that the two are gay (a misunderstanding of Victorian era norms), this show avoids that trap, just as it avoids introducing modern soap-opera-like drama into their relationship. At one point, they actually poke at this theory when Holmes jokingly suggests that people might think they were gay because of the way Watson is behaving.

The production qualities are first rate as well. The sets are well chosen, giving you a flavor of London without doing the usual clichés. In other words, rather than doing things like setting scenes at the gates of Buckingham palace, they use locations like a railway yard with only a hint of the famous Battersea Power Station peeking out from behind an overpass. The inside sets are realistic as well, unlike shows likes CSI where the coroners work in the dark under intense mood lighting. In fact, every single setting is entirely believable and feels like something your would find in real life.

The actors are well chosen too. Holmes and Watson are strong actors with obvious chemistry as friends, but also manage to display the tension that comes from Holmes’ constant condescending to Watson. There is a character introduced near the end, whose name I will not reveal, who also ends up being perfectly played despite my initial shock at his mannerisms. The extras too impress me. Most of them are fat or old or simply "normal," but that helps make them entirely believable. Indeed, this is something great about British television, which is lacking in Hollywood: the ability to produce believable “every day” people on screen.

Finally, the show is fast paced with gripping plots that balance carefully between giving you enough to follow the story and to feel that you can predict where the story is heading, and giving away too much. In fact, you probably won’t have any idea what will happen next, though you never feel cheated. And even better, there isn’t a hint of political correctness. We are not treated to anti-war statements, attacks on religions or the military, attacks on corporations, attacks on conservatives, etc. They don’t wedge minorities into every position of authority, there are no moments where we are told that Islam is wonderful, and Watson even shows disgust at the homeless. There are even two moments that the gay lobby would not have accepted on film in this country. It is refreshing to not feel like you are being lectured.

All in all, I highly recommend this show. They really have managed to take the essence of Sherlock Holmes and bring it to the present. The only complaint I have is that there are only three episodes. Let’s hope for more!

Finally, for a limited time, all three parts are available for viewing on the PBS website: Click Me.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Debt Commission: "Obamacare Not A Problem"

There has been much to admire, and much to criticize about the initial report of the president's debt commission. But just as a camel is a horse put together by a committee, this commission has put together a report that ignores one of the worst excesses of the Obama administration/Reid-Pelosi Congress. There is no minority report, and make no mistake--the Republicans are a clear minority on the commission.

The allegedly non-partisan/bipartisan commission is very political, and the political party most strongly represented is the Democratic Party, by a ratio of 12 to 6. The Democrats have been mouthing the same nonsense as President Obama about not wanting to "re-litigate the health care bill." If November 2nd's election showed us anything, it shows that the American people very much want to re-visit the health care bill, ranging from those who want to make changes to the bill to those who want to scrap it entirely and start over. Litigation is only one of the many methods of attacking the massive takeover of a portion of the American economy. So let's stop the baloney about "re-litigating it." "Re-litigate?" We've only begun to litigate.

Whether the commission believes it or not, the American people believe that Obamacare is a major part of the nation's debt problem. The proposal regarding socialized medicine coming from the commission is the Bowles-Simpson plan. Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson should be ashamed of himself for allowing his name to be connected with a proposal that leaves Obamacare totally untouched. At the same time, commission president Democrat Erskine Bowles joined Simpson in refusing to move Medicare toward a defined contribution program. As a result, the massive Obamacare would be mildly impacted by reductions in Medicare benefits to seniors already stuck in a system that is nothing more than a failed Ponzi scheme.

I can't help thinking of the wry criticism of the debt commission "re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic." There's a huge gash in the ship, it's going down fast by the bow, so let's make sure the silverware is properly laid out in first class. Ignoring Obamacare as a major part of near- and distant-future seas of red ink that will sink the ship of state is tantamount to willful blindness. As they say, "there oughta be a law." Anyone who thinks that a commission is building a bipartisan consensus based on the ultimate partisan government-control measure is certifiably nuts.

One-sixth of the American economy will be devoted to spending on a system that is a proven failure in Great Britain. The lies told about the plan have fallen apart, and even the Obamassiah has admitted a slight miscalculation of a few trillion dollars in what he touted as a deficit-neutral bill. In fact, he early on stated categorically that his socialized medicine would not only be an improvement on the current chaotic system, but in the end would cost less. Are his pants on fire? How long is his nose? And now the members of the deficit commission are joining in the big lie. For shame!




[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Yes, Virginia--There Is A Tenth Amendment

Despite the heavy coverage of the federal elections and the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, there is another story that is equally important. Republicans made huge gains in state legislatures and governorship, and many are spoiling for a fight that will stop the federal juggernaut from taking over every aspect of government and our lives.

Those who don't understand the word "federal" in federal government are equally determined to keep Leviathan in charge of everything. Leading the battle to wrest back the power granted to the states by the Constitution are the governors of Mississippi, Virginia and New Jersey, with several others joining the fray. They are pushing their legislatures to enact legislation designed to stave off the plans to mandate immense federal programs which provide instructions but no funding. It isn't bad enough that the federal government has put the entire United States into fiscal hell, but they are equally drunk with a power that would bury the states in debt as well.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and Democratic Governor Blanco of Louisiana boo-hooed while New Orleans flooded. Assisted by the complete inaction of the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, New Orleans became a wet wreck which hasn't entirely recovered to this day. And according to them, it's all the fault of George Bush who didn't render aid after Katrina hit. Ignoring the fact that under the Constitution, no president can act to bring in troops and federal assistance until requested by the governor of the state, how do they explain the preparation and recovery of their next-door neighbor--equally hard-hit Mississippi? They can't. But we can. The proud state and its Republican governor prepared for the worst, evacuated low-lying areas, had their national guard and state resources ready to move, and asked for federal assistance with specific goals in mind the moment the hurricane hit. That governor was Haley Barbour.

Barbour first broached the idea of governors utilizing their extensive powers to thwart President Obama's agenda while Congressional Republicans recover from their victory. That victory will not mean much until the current lame duck term expires next year. He, along with several of his fellow governors, believes that waiting for Congress to act might make it too late to stop the Katrina-level federal takeover of the economy. Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey believe that if the states act first, federal involvement will be lessened. Furthermore, with a Republican House taking power in January, there will be less determination in Congress to co-opt the rights of the states to solve their own problems.

When asked about the proposal to establish a new congressional committee to have jurisdiction over the entire government to make spending cuts, he replied "they don't need a committee--they need action--they need to make cuts." And all three believe the states can show the way by making the cuts now. All three have faith in the people of their states to accept government spending cuts right now. McDonnell says the states should lead the way by cutting their own spending and holding or reducing tax rates at the same time. He believes that this might just push the Congress into continuing the Bush tax cuts for all classes, reduce capital gains taxes and concentrate on private job creation. At the same time he thinks the mutual action at state and federal levels might just cause Congress to re-think how the federal government burdens the states.

Barbour advocates even more direct and positive action by suggesting that governors should go to Washington and work with Congressional Republicans to craft draconian cuts to the federal budget and encouraging them to act at the earliest possible time. He further suggests that a showing of state willingness to sacrifice could be transferred to House members with some hefty encouragement from the governors. He and the other two governors (along with several who haven't formally signed on to the concept) believe that the landslide that occurred in the House was actually not as significant as the fact that Republicans took control of twenty legislatures from the Democrats. That is the biggest turnover since 1928.

McDonnell says to House members-elect: "Given the overwhelming tide at the state level, it really is time for an honest and robust discussion about federalism. What does the Tenth Amendment really mean? Part of the reason you've got this long-term deficit is you keep legislating in areas that you shouldn't be in (emphasis added)." He goes on to say: "Stick to what the federal government is supposed to do. Do that well--fund it well--but stay out of areas that are traditionally reserved for the states (emphasis added). Let us manage those areas." He sees clearly that if Congress is busy deciding where it can cut things like the military budget (part of its constitutional mandate) while at the same time trying to micromanage and mandate things like state MedicAid, nothing will be done properly.

McDonnell was also asked about California. The likelihood is that with the Democratic sweep in that state (the attorney general position notwithstanding), and Jerry Brown as governor, the state will go bankrupt. Should the federal government bail California out? True to his federalist beliefs, McDonnell says: "Absolutely not. I don't subscribe to 'too big to fail.' There's no obligation of the United States to bail them out." He points out that Meg Whitman had the best plan available for California to get itself out of debt, and the people rejected her. So, they've made their bed, now let them lie in it. As a Californian who will be severely impacted by the impending bankruptcy, I say "more power to McDonnell and the federalists."

California can continue to consider itself to be lotus land, largely because unlike other states, California has no balanced budget requirement. When offered that amendment to the state constitution, the people rejected it. So now they can just wallow in debt, at least until the bills come due. The state is already borrowing money from the federal government to pay for its state unemployment benefits. And that's aside from the federal extensions which have kept many Californians too comfortably afloat.

Jed Babbin at The American Spectator suggests that Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate should convene closed-door meetings with Barbour, McDonnell, Christie and other fiscally-conservative governors to make plans to deliver on their campaign promises to reduce the size of the federal government, maintain the Bush tax cuts and cut spending. "And the doors shouldn't be reopened until they come up with a bicameral plan of action that will deliver what the voters said they wanted on November 2: real cuts, real restraint of government spending and a concise plan that all of them can put into legislation that will pass the House in January."

That fits in with the worry we've expressed on this site about the Republicans not having a coherent plan for Congressional action. They could learn a great deal about both good governance and practical politics from these governors. And it would also solve the problem of Republicans being saddled with the phony charge of being the "party of no." First, it establishes that Republicans really do have a plan, and want to act at the earliest possible time. And yes, it also recognizes that the loathsome Harry Reid will lead his still-Democratic Senate to stop the plans.

And when Reid acts, the roles become reversed, and the Democrats become the party both of "no" and "know nothing." Republicans will be seen as acting on the will of the people, and successfully pursuing those goals in the House, while recalcitrant statist socialist Democrats in the Senate will use every dirty trick in the book to block the House and the people. And with the Republicans taking the initiative, any resulting "government shutdown" will be clearly seen as the fault of the Democrats (Senate and White House) rather than the blame being placed on Republicans as it was during the Clinton administration.

In the immortal words of the great poet Jim Morrison, "the time to hesitate is through--no time to wallow in the mire." Republicans must get their heads together, form a coherent plan, link arms, and march. What a refreshing change that would be. The states working with the federal government instead of the states working for the federal government. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Guns of Navarone (1961)

The Guns of Navarone is a fascinating movie, and not just because of what’s on the screen. Based on a book by Alistair MacLean, the film was written and produced as anti-Cold War propaganda by Carl Foreman, a member of the communist party, who was blacklisted in the United States. His intent apparently was to suggest to Western audiences that they not fight the Cold War. But like so many other liberal message films, his message backfired, and he ended up creating a rousing film that remains one of the stronger World War II movies.

** spoiler alert **

Navarone ostensibly is the story of a commando team that must infiltrate a fictional Nazi-occupied island in Greece and destroy a large rail gun so the British Navy can pass by the island to save 5,000 trapped British troops. As they do this, they are repeatedly faced with nasty choices, such as whether or not to kill one of their own when he gets wounded or to feed him false information knowing he will reveal the information under torture. They also encounter betrayal, cold-blooded murder, and cowardice.

More importantly, the three main characters struggle with each other. Capt. Mallory (Gregory Peck), an American, is tired of the war, but continues with his duty even though it seems hopeless to him. Andrea Stavros (Anthony Quinn), a former Colonel in the Greek army, fights to free his home. Corporal Miller (David Niven), a British explosives expert, is anti-war and revels in criticizing Mallory’s actions.

I say “ostensibly” because the film is actually a metaphor for the Cold War. If we see this film as Foreman intended, then we would notice the following: the Nazis, who stand in for the Soviets, are ruthless, efficient, and nearly omniscient. It is hopeless to fight them. Mallory, who represents Americans, is a stupid man who is only doing what he’s been told and has no idea why he’s fighting. Miller, who represents America’s allies, is worn out, cynical and ready to make America carry the load. He also manipulates Mallory into doing all the dirty deeds. And Stavros represents the people of third world countries who are dying on these misguided American missions.

But here’s the problem for Foreman. Leftist propaganda doesn’t sell. To make the movie profitable, the characters had to resolve their issues before they could move ahead. And in so doing, Foreman’s anti-war message morphs into a call for everyone to understand the importance of fighting, i.e. the reasons why the West did fight, and to grasp their importance to the fight. In effect, to draw an audience, he turns an anti-war screed into an incredibly strong pro-war film.

Indeed, as the characters reach the make or break moment, Mallory suddenly realizes why he’s fighting -- he needs to make this realization if he is to be able to continue the mission. He realizes that he is not fighting just a different ideology, but an evil ideology, and that he must succeed if he is to save the people who are relying on him. In other words, he learns that he is part of a bigger picture and what he does matters because people are relying on him.

What brings about this epiphany is his observation of the Greeks. Up to this point in the film, Mallory and Miller have been little more than tourists. They see the island as just another battleground and they pay no attention to the locals. But as they are brought into the lives of the locals, they come to realize what the Nazis have wrought upon this community and the lives they’ve destroyed. This particularly strikes Mallory when he realizes this war is a matter of life and death to Stavros, and that Stavros can’t simply quit the war and go back to his old life. He knew this, just as he knew that 5,000 soldiers and sailors would die if he failed, but his experience finally personalizes this for him.

It’s at this point that Mallory has enough of Miller’s constant harping and disclaiming of any responsibility. Miller has disavowed responsibility for everything that happened, and criticized Mallory at every turn, safe in the knowledge that Mallory would do his duty no matter how asinine Miller behaved. But now Mallory has his fill, and he delivers one of the most pro-war speeches you will ever hear in a film. Indeed, he berates Miller for trying to pretend that he is only an observer and he tells Miller “whether you like it or not, you’re in this thing, up to your neck.” He then demands that Miller finally carry his own weight. Shamed, Miller realizes that his cynical pacifism had been disloyalty bordering on sabotage.

Thus, what was meant to present an image of America adrift facing an invincible foe as worn-out, whiny, worthless allies harp at America from the sidelines, suddenly becomes a rousing pro-war statement declaring the importance of everyone working together to win this struggle to set the world free. Basically, Foreman’s anti-war film turned into a crystal clear statement of why everyone needed to do their duty.

This is one of the ironies of leftist propaganda films: they often backfire on their creators because the need to attract an audience requires certain elements that change the message of the film. In this case, had the characters surrendered to their cynicism, then there would be no doubt about the anti-war message of the film. . . but there wouldn’t have been an audience. Instead, the characters overcome the ideological confines placed upon them early in the film so they can try to end the movie successfully. And because of that, the “message” of defeatism actually gets converted from being the thing the audience was meant to take away from the film into the thing that must be beaten for a brighter future. And that's the exact opposite of what Foreman hoped to convey.

Whoops.

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Oh No, Caught Again... Drilling For Lies

The Democrats like to call themselves the party of science. Yeah, right. Anyone remember Climategate? Do you remember how the global warmists were caught manipulating data time and again to support their political views? Perhaps you remember Obama confirming his support for their data even after they were caught? Well, now he's been caught lying about the scientific support for his moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf. So much for science.

According to the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General, the White House (Mr. Obama and friends) edited a drilling safety report to make it appear that scientists and other experts supported the administration’s six-month ban on new drilling. Said the IG, the editing resulted “in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed” when it hadn’t.

In fact, eight of the fifteen experts who supposedly signed off on the report issued a statement when Obama released the report, in which they state that they did not support the moratorium:

“We believe the report does not justify the moratorium as written and that the moratorium as changed will not contribute measurably to increased safety and will have immediate and long-term economic effects.”

They also noted that the report issued by Obama, which he claimed they supported, differed in important ways from the draft they had been asked to review. The IG now confirms this.

So much for Obama's claim that he would “restore science to its rightful place” and his memo promising to “restor[e] scientific integrity to government decision-making.” I guess he just meant "the veneer of science"?

And this isn’t even the first time Obama has been caught playing around with the facts in the Gulf. First, he lied about the government’s involvement, claiming that the government had been directing the clean up when it actually did nothing for weeks. Then he misled the public in his first speech by trying to claim this leak resulted in less oil being spilled than the Exxon Valdez disaster, even though the Gulf spill dwarfed the Exxon Valdez spill. Then Obama repeatedly lied about the amount of oil being released into the Gulf. In fact, his lies were so over the top that even the New York Times finally concluded:

“The government repeatedly underestimated how much oil was flowing into the Gulf of Mexico and how much was left after the well was capped in July, leading to a loss of faith in the government’s ability to handle the spill and a continuing breach between the federal authorities and state and local officials.”

This opinion was backed up by four separate reports. In fact, while Team Obama told the public that 5,000 barrels a day were seeping into the Gulf, they knew the real number could be more than twenty times higher. Ultimately, it was determined to be around 60,000 barrels a day. . . twelve times the Obama estimate.

Isn’t it funny that the man who would be Messiah can’t tell the truth about a simple oil spill that technically wasn’t even his fault? And if he would lie about something like that, what else would he lie about? He clearly has no qualms about using other people’s names to support his views, even if he needs to lie, mislead, and distort what they really said.

One of the truism of politics is that it’s not the mistake that undoes a politician, it’s the attempt to cover up the mistake. And telling stupid small lies and pretending that scientists support you, when they don’t, is about as stupid as it gets. Like the President he follows most closely, Richard Nixon, Obama is well on his way to imploding.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Charlie Brown: Meet Lucy And The Football

Are any of you late-night watchers of PBS? I have moments when I can't resist. Usually, it's because I'm having trouble going to sleep. Turning on the Charlie Rose show is better than Sominex. But his Monday night show kept me awake for a change. He was interviewing New York Times "journalist" Thomas Friedman.

What jarred me awake was that Friedman was talking about what a great place America is. He even discussed American "naivete" in positive terms. That was guaranteed to keep me awake. Suddenly, I was bolt upright. Had Friedman had an epiphany? Do I need a hearing aid? Pinch me, I think I'm dreaming. But when the cats ran for cover when I shouted "what did he just say?!?!" I knew I was really hearing it.

The verbatim transcript shows that in response to Rose asking him if the rest of the world wants America to lead them, Friedman responded as follows: "Oh, at the popular level, absolutely, Charlie. You know, one of the things that I sort of learned living abroad in the Middle East for as long as I did--everyone loves to make fun of America. You know, they love to make fun of America, we're so naive. We think every problem has a solution, those silly Americans. We get all atwitter about an affair between the president and an intern, you know, everyone loves to make fun of us."

"But, Charlie, at the end of the day? American optimism, American naivete, helps make--it really makes the world go round. And if America goes dark, if America goes adrift, that's something that touches and is felt by people all over the world. And we, America in the mind of the world is still a very, very powerful thing."

He went on to extol the wonders of a young man he was speaking with who had a brilliant project planned. American naivete at work. Americans just don't accept the concept that "it has never been done, and it can't be done." "There's always some young person, some inventor, and I keep meeting these people any time I travel outside of Washington--they didn't get the word that you're supposed to be depressed." God love him. He has recognized that there really is intelligent life outside the beltway, there are young people who are free to advance unconventional ideas, and creativity exists best outside government."

And then he delivered the sucker punch that with my experience I should have seen coming. "Didn't get the word you're supposed to be depressed, you're supposed to be on your back, you're supposed to be watching Fox TV, you know, and feeling all kind of hate and venom for President Obama. You know, they just didn't get the word."

So we must now conclude that all the love and hope the Times has for Obama is motivating these clever youths, and that Fox is going to be responsible for the downfall of American optimism. After all, we know how positive and encouraging the Times was toward George W. Bush and the ultimate optimist, Ronald Reagan. The American people were depressed by presidents who saw America as "the greatest force for good in the world." Presidents who said horrible things like "it's morning in America." Presidents who believed that America really is that shining city on the hill.

Well, it is depressing that we now have a president who thinks America is a force for intolerance, reaction and imperialism. It is depressing to have a president who thinks the Constitution is an impediment to good government, and that the Founders were just a bunch of slave-holding capitalist white men. It is depressing to have a president who thinks that America's creative juices must be co-opted by government bureaucrats, and that all creative ideas must be taxed into oblivion. It is depressing to know that we have a president who proudly (if somewhat inaccurately) describes America as one of the world's largest Muslim nations.

But you know what makes me an optimist? It's not Thomas Friedman, that's for sure. And it's not Fox TV either. It's the American people. They know they're down but not out. They believe in a system that changes governments based on performance (or in this case, non-performance, misfeasance and malfeasance). They understand that if you make a mistake, correct it. And most of all, they refuse to believe that God and the Constitution are going to let America disappear into the dustbin of history because in a rush of generosity they elected a man not fit for the office. They will not tolerate a president who thinks America owes the world apologies for its greatness and ability to right its wrongs. That's not depression. It's the optimism that Friedman finds, but only in the holy light of the Obamassiah.

So, Thomas Lucy van Pelt Friedman, you have pulled the football out from under this Charlie Brown's foot for the last time. The next time I need to get to sleep, I'll count sheep instead of watching pigs.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Treehouse Improvement Wars

By the Boiler Room Elves

As Commentarama readers may remember, the Boiler Room Elves took advantage of the dear leader's little-known Treehouse Tax Credit last year. (Yes, the Elf lobby is surprisingly strong. . .) Well, having settled into our new Keebler Oak, we've discovered a game that seemingly plays out around the world - Treehouse Improvement Wars.

In the large elm to the left live a nice older couple. Let's call them the Winky's. In the poplar on the right live the Bobbin's.

When we first moved in, everyone seemed nice, without a hint of competitiveness. That’s how things stayed, until we undertook re-landscaping the front yard - new plants, a path to the side gate, and an additional tree in the back for a guest house.

As we worked, we noticed the Bobbin's outside, going up and down ladders, painting the trim. Suddenly, our trim didn’t look so good. Soon, we were painting too. Then we saw workmen going in and out of the Winky’s, carrying rolls of linoleum. Something was up.

The Bobbin’s noticed this too and soon began sprucing up their lawn. Well, we couldn’t let this go unchallenged. No no no, we Boiler Room elves were not about to rest on our considerable laurels, so we painted the wooden picket fence in the front yard. Yet, no sooner had we put brush to picket than Mrs. Bobbin came out and said, in her ever-cheery, high-pitched way, "Don't be getting too spiffy over there!" Of course, we couldn’t help but notice the Home Depot card in her hand, and unlike Joe Biden we were pretty sure she knew where it was located. . . and here we thought she was a nice, cookie-baking grandma! Now we see the truth.

The next morning, the Winky’s tried to sneak in a paintjob before anyone woke up, but we caught them. Darn your cookies, we will not be outdone! It was time to up the fight: where’s that number from the patio guy with the water feature and statue of St. Elfmo?

But try as we might, no matter what we spent, we couldn’t shake the Winky’s or the Bobbin’s. Soon things were being done left and right. We Elves weren't planning on painting the outside, nor were we planning on redoing the kitchen (it's mostly industrial-grade ovens anyway), but we will not be defeated!

Finally, we learned a truism: there truly is no winner in war. . . except Home Depot.

Wait, that’s not what we learned, of course there are winners in war, and we plan to be that winner. No, we learned that you can never be too rich, too over-cookied, too well armed, or too familiar with Home Depot!

Oh, and we need a raise.

So, Bossmen, what are you guys doing to improve your houses?"


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Hate The Haters. . . Or Else

Let’s play a game that often exposed flaws in an argument. I’m going to present an article from a typically liberal source (The Economist), but I’m going to stick “Hitler” in place of the people they are defending to show that they would not be making the same argument if the subject was someone they didn’t like. In other words, while they present this as a series of general principles, these are not principles, they are excuses which they would only use to defend some people. Inconsistency is evidence of false logic and bias.

---------------------

Title: Why Mr. Churchill is a problem, not a solution

Winston Churchill, leader of the anti-Nazi Party, is on trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Nazis. But when he appeared before judges, this champion of free speech declined to speak.

The court heard some of Mr. Churchill’s greatest hits: “Mein Kampf is the Bible of a religion that intends to eliminate others”; “Nazism wants to control, subdue and is out for the destruction of our Western civilization”; Mein Kampf stripped of its hateful verses, “should actually have the format of a Donald Duck comic book.” The judges’ questions were comically innocent. Did Mr. Churchill really say such things? Was it in the heat of the moment? Had he received legal advice? Did he really need to refer to Donald Duck? Stubborn silence.

Notice the double implication in the phrase “comically innocent” that only a fool would make such comments and that these judges clearly have no understanding of how evil a mind like Mr. Churchill’s can be, an understanding our enlightened author clearly has.

Maybe the state should not be in the business of prosecuting politicians for their offensive views. But these are highly charged times.

Ah the enlightened leftist mind, always looking to criminalize disagreement with their views, and always willing to use alleged crises (“highly charged times”) as an excuse for circumventing what they claim to be fundamental rights. Further, notice what our enlightened author thinks should constitute thought crimes. Churchill did not call for violence, he did not preach sedition. No. He merely said something insulting about another’s beliefs. And that is enough for this enlightened author to call for his imprisonment.

* * *

Mr. Churchill’s party is only one of many anti-Nazi groups that are gaining ground in northern European countries previously known for their liberal social attitudes. . . . These parties, all with their own special characteristics, are distinct from older far-right groups. . . but a common theme is a dislike of foreigners, especially Nazis.

Right, because it can’t be the Nazi’s hateful views and intolerant ideas these people oppose, it must be about race. Clearly, Churchill just hates people who don’t look like he does. Forget that Nazism isn’t a race or ethnicity, it’s a set of beliefs.

* * *

Mr. Churchill should not be underestimated. By identifying the enemy as Nazism and not foreigners, and by casting his rhetoric in terms of freedom rather than race, he becomes harder to label as a reactionary, racist or neo-Nazi. . . He [claims to be] fighting to defend the West’s liberties; the enemy is Nazism (not Nazis, he says), which seeks, violently, to destroy them.

Again, our enlightened author assumes that Churchill is a racist, and he does so over the denials of Churchill. To make his assumption work, he further assumes that Churchill’s denials are merely a clever form of disguise. What’s more, notice how we are told separating Nazis from Nazism is a ruse. . . yet we are simultaneously told that we must separate “Nazis” from the things they do, they say, and they believe, and from the things done in their names. In other words, "don’t blame the serial killer, blame the killing. . . but if you are someone I don’t like, then I know that you are really blaming the killer even if you only talk about the killing." This is complete nonsense.

Such views chime with some American conservatives. . . Yet Americans (and Europeans) should be wary of embracing Mr. Churchill. To expose violent Nazi ideology is legitimate, even necessary; to attack Nazism and Mein Kampf is dangerous stupidity that weakens the civilization Mr. Churchill claims to defend.

This is double-double speak. First, how do you point out ideological extremism without attacking the source of that extremism, i.e. the ideology? That’s like being asked to criticize the word choice in Moby Dick and the ideology of Melville without mentioning the book or the author. Secondly, if you will recall from above (“highly charged times”), our enlightened author has already said that it should be a speech crime to point out the extremism, which he now claims is “legitimate, even necessary” to “expose.” This is gotcha logic: you may criticize, but any criticism you make will be wrong.

What should democratic parties do when lots of voters back a far-right party? At a time of recession, populism cannot just be wished away.

Historically, populism is a leftwing philosophy.

One answer is to address legitimate grievances about the scale and nature of Nazism. (In France Nicolas Sarkozy has, controversially, pinched far-right rhetoric.) Another is to use the law to curb blatant examples of hate speech.

In other words, your two best methods are to (1) start using extremist rhetoric to trick people into voting for you and then never following through with it, i.e. lie, or (2) “use the law” to stop people from saying things you don’t like. . . but only people who criticize the Nazis, as we’ve already made clear that any interference or criticism of Nazism is beyond the pale.

But the temptation for many is to isolate the extremists, perhaps with an alliance of mainstream left and right. That risks intensifying voters’ sense that politicians are not listening to them, further boosting the extremists, but it may be necessary against the most odious groups.

This is idiotic. First, our enlightened author is concerned that the center banding together might make people feel that politicians aren’t listening to them, yet he has no qualms about suggesting that the center adopt extremist rhetoric but not follow through. Which is more likely to anger voters and make them feel alienated? Secondly, this enlightened author tell us in the first sentence that banding together in the center won’t work, but then tells us that this may be necessary? Gee, taking this drug won’t help you, but it’s probably necessary that you take it.

A better, braver strategy (”brave” because the left loves heroes rather than ideas) might be to bring far-right leaders into the cabinet, exposing their ideas to reality and their personalities to the public gaze. It may make for tetchy government, but it could also moderate the extremes. So roll the dice and make Mr. Churchill foreign minister: for how long could he keep telling the world to ban Mein Kampf?

Wow! Words cannot describe how stupid this enlightened author is. “Gee, he’s evil, so let’s give him power because that will stop him!” The only way that makes sense is if you assume that Churchill doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying and that you are calling his bluff by giving him the chance to implement those policies. How deluded must this idiot be to think that Churchill doesn’t genuinely believe that Nazism is bad? And how hypocritical for this jerk to consider the above judges naive!

--------------------

Obviously, what we’re talking about Islam, not Nazism, and Mr. Churchill is Dutch politician Gert Wilders. But the parallels with Winston Churchill are much stronger than you may realize. When Western elitists were marveling at the great Adolph Hitler and Time named him Man of the Year (1938), Churchill was warning the world. . . and was seen as a lunatic for pointing out Hitler’s own words. Wilders has done the same thing, using the very words of the Koran and of Islamic leaders to point out their intent. . . and finds himself laughed at by the same chattering class whose ancestors worshipped Hitler before falling for Stalin.

What makes this article so interesting to me is the blatant hypocrisy and that the author clearly assumes that people like Wilders don’t really believe what they are saying -- not to mention that somehow he sees being opposed to Islam, a religion, as being a racist. But the article is most notable for how easily the author suggests criminalizing disagreement with his views. That’s the same attitude that gave aid and comfort to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and Mao as they silenced the troublemakers in the millions.

I guess that’s just how liberals roll.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Not Me.... It's You... You're Too Stupid

Sometimes relationships hit bumpy spots. One side or the other gets a little wee wee’d up and soon you find yourself having to issue some form of apology to calm things down. Fortunately, I am the master of the seemingly-real apology! Let me run this by you and see what you make of it:

I figure I'll start by showing that I understand what the real problem is, that I know why she's upset:

I understand you’re upset Honey Bunny, and I know why. You thought we’d have more money by now, but that didn’t happen and now you’re cranky. . .

What? You don't like that? Ok, I'll change it to this:

“Yesterday's vote confirmed what I've heard from folks all across America. People are frustrated, they're deeply frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery. . . .”

“I think first and foremost, it was a referendum on the economy. And the party in power was held responsible for an economy that is still underperforming and where a lot of folks are still hurting. . . . .”

Now I want to make it clear that I sympathize with her concerns, even if it isn't my fault:

Look, I’m frustrated too, but this was not my fault. The whole money thing is beyond anyone’s control. . .

What? Again? Fine, I'll go with the altenative:

“I do get discouraged, I mean, there are times where I thought the economy would [have] gotten better by now. As president… you’re held responsible for everything. But you don't always have control of everything. Especially an economy this big— there are limited tools to encourage— the kind of job growth that we need.”

Now I think I should probably mention the other things she's upset about:

And as for the other things, well. . . look, I did the right things, even though I knew you wouldn’t get that. I even knew you might be unhappy about it, but I did it all for you. Still, wow, did you take this a lot worse than I expected. . .

Oh come on, that was gold! Fine. I'll change it:

“At the time, we knew that it probably wasn’t great politics. I made the decision to go ahead and do it and it proved as costly politically, as we expected. Probably actually a little more costly than we expected, politically.”

You people are too picky. You know, I only did what she wanted... and I should tell her that!

Heck, I only did what you said you liked before. . .

Alright, alright:

“We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn’t that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans, including a Republican Governor in Massachusetts who’s now running for president, we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn’t.”

And it's not like I didn't take heat from my friends for trying to be nice about this. She should know that:

My friends said you were an idiot and you wouldn’t understand, but I stood up for you. I told them you just have a different way of thinking. . . and that’s ok, we can’t all be perfect. . .

Yeah, yeah... I know. "Try and say it nicer." blah blah blah. Here:

“I will say that when it comes to some of-- my supporters— part of it, I think, is-- the belief that if I just communicated things better, that I’d be able to persuade-- that half of the country that voted for John McCain that we were right and they were wrong.”
“One of the things that I think is important for people to remember is that-- you know, this country-- doesn’t just agree with the New York Times editorial page. And, I can make some really good arguments-- defending the Democratic position. And there are going to be some people who just don’t agree with me. And that’s okay."

Ok, time to get to the point, I do share some of the blame:

Still, I freely admit that I am partly to blame here. I thought all I had to do was do the right things and you’d get it. I didn’t realize I had to dumb it down for you. . .

What?! Man you people are high maintenance! Oh, ok. I'll rephrase it to soften the blow:

“I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that, yeah, leadership isn’t just legislation, that it’s a matter of persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together, and setting a tone. We haven’t always been successful at that, and I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I have to examine carefully as I go forward.”

Happy now? Let's finish strong with a couple of classics, first the old shared blame -- "we both said things we regret":

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself.”

Nice! Notice how it sounds like I'm admitting fault, but I never actually say those words! Then we finish with a promise for the future, the old "we can work this out, if you just start listening to the facts."

“We’re going to have a negotiation. I am open to-- you know, finding a way in which, you know, they can meet their principles and I can meet mine. But in order to do that, I think we do have to answer the question of how we pay for it…. Hopefully, we can agree on a set of facts that leads to a compromise.”

Fantastic! Guaranteed relationship saver! I worked all night on that baby. Hmm... I’m sensing resistance. Well, if you don't like this, then you aren’t going to like what Obama just said.

Of course, none of us should be surprised that Obama would take this approach with us. This is the man who sees us as bitter clingers: "It's not surprising, then, that they get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." He also thought it was “stupid” to arrest a belligerent black man who appeared to be breaking into a residence. He called those of us who disagreed with him “enemies,” his minister damned our country, and his wife was proud of America for the first time only after it promoted her husband beyond his level of competence. Those aren’t coincidences.

One of liberalism’s many problems has been the perception by the public that liberals are arrogant and condescend to us hopelessly stupid and backward people. Indeed, one of the things Bill Clinton was notable for was his ability to relate to the public, something none of the pointy-headed wunderkinds and self-certified geniuses from the 1960s until 1992 could ever do. I guess Obama proves that Clinton was indeed an anomaly.

And as for Obama’s apology or statement that he understands us or whatever. . . forget it, non-apology not accepted.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...