Reporter to Obama: Um, didn’t you belittle Hillary’s foreign policy cred during the primaries?

Sure he did, but you can’t hold him to things he said in the heat of battle. Remember, this is a guy who lied repeatedly on the stump about a pillar of American trade policy and then climbed down as soon as it was safe to do so. BS-ing about his contempt for Hillary’s qualifications is small potatoes by comparison.

Note Her Majesty nodding along at the beginning as Obama pointedly reaffirms that he’ll be the one setting policy. Lurking over her shoulder (literally, in some of the camera angles) is Susan Rice, who was originally touted for State or NSA and who’ll end up instead as ambassador to the UN — which The One now plans to make into a cabinet-level position. That’s significant for two reasons: (1) it signals to the public that he’s serious about “soft power” playing a vastly bigger role in his administration than it did in Bush’s, and (2) it signals to Hillary that if she steps out of line he has someone capable of replacing her without missing a beat. How capable? Maguire points out that while Rice is known for being hawkish on intervening against genocides, she had no problem with The One’s plan to pull out of Iraq notwithstanding the likely outcome. Which is just where Hillary stood at the time, except she was even blunter about it:

Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they’re at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”

“No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if.”

I’m going to stop here before I talk myself out of supporting the pick again. Not shown in the video, incidentally: Joe Biden, who finally got to say a few words at one of these pressers because he is, of course, a foreign policy genius who got the surge just as wrong as Hillary did.

• Seeing President-elect Barack Obama as [6] Santa Claus, mayors have descended on Washington asking for $90 billion spending plan to fund local priorities.
• Analysts say [7] next year’s deficit could top $1 trillion and the economic rescue could cost $8.5 trillion.
• [8] Legions of lobbyists are lining up to cash in on the $700 billion stimulus Democrats are promising to give away.
• Obama’s expected pick of Tom Daschle to be secretary of Health and Human Services [9] contradicts his pledge to rid the White House of special interests.
• In light of new ethics charges, the Washington Post has joined the New York Times in [10] calling for Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to step down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/01/morning-bell-preventing-the-possible/

Bollywood as clueless as Hollywood

One might think that an attack like Mumbai just suffered, in which as many as 300 died, might tend to focus the minds of Indians on the true definition of terrorism.  Not according to Bollywood, India’s film industry, which apparently has more in common with Hollywood than just a clever twist on the name:

On the evening of Nov. 26, the biggest names in Bollywood walked the red carpet at the Bombay premiere of “The President Is Coming,” a comedy about six 20-somethings vying to win the right to shake hands with President Bush.

Among those in attendance at the star-studded premiere Wednesday evening was Bollywood’s “new heartthrob” Imran Khan, who proudly posed for paparazzi donning a T-shirt with Mr. Bush’s face sandwiched between the words “International Terrorist.”

Mr. Khan - a member of India’s Muslim minority - chose not to mock international terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. He and his co-religionists know the deadly results for those who do.

At the precise moment Mr. Khan and hundreds of others making their fortunes in the multibillion-dollar Indian movie business were watching “The President Is Coming,” only a few blocks away, 10 20-something Muslim extremists began a horrific three-day terror spree.

Azam Amir Kasab, the sole surviving terrorist, told his saviors, “I was told to kill to my last breath.” The 21-year-old Pakistani stated that the group’s goal was to kill 5,000 people. Overall, at least 174 people died and more than 300 were injured.

Andrew Breitbart reports that Khan wore this shirt despite the deaths of family members of other members of the Bollywood community.  Khan’s shirt may have been the most obvious evidence of cluelessness — and the most crass — but he was hardly alone.   They’re busy blaming the police for their ineptitude rather than the terrorists themselves (with some justification) while declaring the terrorists insane and demanding that the same authorities chase after them with butterfly nets rather than guns, which seems wildly contradictory to everyone outside of Bollywood … and Hollywood.

It’s a scandal what Congress has arranged for the public to be taught inside its Capitol Visitor Center, the $621 million underground gateway and “educational experience” that opens Tuesday.[1] In the Visitor Center’s Exhibition Hall, the theme is “E Pluribus Unum — Out of Many, One.” Initially,  words etched in marble called that stirring phrase the nation’s motto. A bad plaster job now covers the reference, someone having noticed that, well, “E Pluribus Unum” is not our national motto. “In God We Trust” is. But so far that’s notably absent, along with other references to faith.

But what bothered me the most as I toured the Visitor Center on Tuesday at the request of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)  –  [2] who first sounded the alarm last year on this politically correct outrage — is how the Visitor Center twists and distorts the Constitution.

[3] I thought the Constitution (because it says so) was about powers delegated to government by the people, who possess individual rights. Article I begins: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” A written agreement on the extent (and limits) of those powers is critical to a government deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed,” as the Declaration of Independence prescribes.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare,” James Madison wrote, “the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Wrong, Mr. Madison. Congress’ new Visitor Center decrees the Constitution isn’t a list of powers but rather of “aspirations” Congress is expected to define and realize. The exhibit specifies six:

1. Unity (as in “a more perfect Union” in the Preamble, which grants Congress no power).
2. Freedom (based on the First Amendment, which begins with the words  “Congress shall make no law …”).
3. Common Defense (from Article I, Section 8).
4. Knowledge (authority to promote public education, support arts and sciences, fund extensive research).
5. Exploration (to justify funding “curiosity and boldness” — like 4, this comes from a convoluted reading of the clause granting Congress the power to issue patents).
6. General Welfare (found in Article I, Section 8’s restriction of the taxing power, but taken here to mean “improving transportation, promoting agriculture and industry, protecting health and the environment, and seeking ways to solve social and economic problems”).

See for yourself. [4] The Heritage Foundation has put the full text, including the script of  an orientation film, online.

This exhibit is Congress’ temple to liberals’ “living Constitution,” the eternal font of lawmakers’ evolving mandate to achieve the nation’s ideals. No fixed meanings here, only open-ended “aspirations.” In this distorted view, the Constitution is an empty vessel, to be adapted to the times, as change requires. It means nothing — or anything.

Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/11/27/for-visitors-a-capitol-scandal/

URLs in this post:
[1] In the Visitor Center’s Exhibition Hall,: http://www.visitthecapitol.gov/Exhibitions/

[2] who first sounded the alarm last year on this politically correct outrage: http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=abe4e5
16-ea13-5c7c-6f5c-90f4c6b081dc&Type=Press%20Release&Month=12&Year=2007

[3] I thought the Constitution (because it says so) was about powers delegated to government by the people, who possess individual rights: http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/first-principles.cfm

[4] The Heritage Foundation has put the full text, including the script of  an orientation film, online.: http://www.heritage.org/leadershipforamerica/upload/CVC.pdf

We've already gone the moderate route -- and lost. One of the most surreal aspects of the post-2008 campaign is listening to moderates pretend that the last eight years never happened.

You say that the GOP can't win as a small government party. Well, we've already tried being a big government party for the last 8 years and it failed. You think running a moderate, pro-amnesty candidate who eschews social issues is the key to winning elections? Well, that's who we ran in 2008 and he received even less votes than George Bush did in 2004.

Basically, we have a lot of moderates in the GOP taking the same attitude that the Left used to take towards communism, "It works, but it just hasn't been tried by the right people yet." It didn't make much sense when the lefties were saying it and it makes even less sense now.

Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".

At the end of article a National Security Guard was asked whether they tried to capture the terrorists alive.

"Unko bachana kaun chahega (Who will want to save them)?"

Keeping in touch with the little people