Shhh: Obama may create “classified loophole” for enhanced interrogations

The Obama swoon at the Post’s HQ

Kurtz equates the visit with one from Brad Pitt while the actor researched a role, but the two are not equivalent.  Pitt doesn’t hold elective office and doesn’t have power to impose policy; gushing over his celebrity doesn’t mean anything in the long run, although I’d be surprised if the Post’s movie reviewers had the same reaction.  Obama deserves to be treated with respect, but he’s not just another Teen Dream celebrity.  He’s our next President, and it would have been nice to see the Post use the visit to do something other than “gawk” at The One.

This question asks itself: Would the Post’s staff had treated George W. Bush like a visiting movie star in January 2001?  Would all work had “ground to a halt” in a visit by Ronald Reagan in January 1981?  And Reagan actually was a movie star.  If they’re going to fawn over Obama now, we can expect a lot more of it over the next four years.

Speaking of swoons …

The Washington Post buries the lede in their front-page report on their editorial conference with Barack Obama.  They lead with the news that Obama wants to tackle entitlement reform, certainly an encouraging note, although made all but meaningless in the trillions pouring out of Washington at the moment to bail out politically-connected private enterprises.  Not until the fourth paragraph does this amazing backpedal jump out at the reader — and at Ed Whelan, who noted it at The Corner (emphasis mine):

In a wide-ranging 70-minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors, the president-elect pledged quick action on the Middle East once he takes office, promised to support voting rights for D.C. residents, and said he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office.

What? During the campaign, Obama often demanded the immediate closure of Gitmo and promised just that repeatedly.  It didn’t make much of a splash during the general election, as John McCain made the same pledge.  In fact, his transition team suggested that Obama would issue an executive order in the first days of his administration to get the ball rolling on that task.

And now?  Now Obama has decided to set the expectation that it might take as long as four years to figure out how to fulfill his campaign promise.  This stunning nugget that dropped into the Post’s lap was recognized as so newsworthy that the Post failed to even ask about the four-year shift in the timeline even once.  Gitmo only gets one more mention in the 34-paragraph story — in paragraph 28.  And in that paragraph, the Post tells readers that Obama is “confident” that he can make his new self-imposed deadline of whenever.

This tends to prove the notion that the throbbingly warm reception Obama received this week in the Post’s office was no fluke.  If Bush promised to close Gitmo immediately and then shared the idea that “immediately” means sometime in the next four years, would the Post have buried that?  Had John McCain won the election and pushed Gitmo’s closure to 2013, the Post would have headlined that and had 34 paragraphs about how McCain misled voters and betrayed his anti-torture principles.

Tom Hanks: Prop 8 supporters are “un-American”

Rusty’s pithy rebuttal: “Also un-American by this definition? Americans.” Exit question one: Anything “un-American” about Jerry Brown’s attempt to have a constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional? Exit question two: How far, in his immaculate American-ness, would Hanks be willing to go to make sure “people can see who’s responsible”? This far?

Tom Hanks: Prop 8 supporters are “un-American”[Fox News]

Exclusionary rule gets narrowed considerably

But did Biden offer to cut up Iraq?

How far have the Democrats moved on Iraq?  Joe Biden, the incoming Vice President, has demanded a partition of the country into three separate federal states, which no one else — especially not the Iraqis — want.  Barack Obama, our next President, demanded a fixed-date withdrawal from Iraq during the primaries.  Both men insisted that the surge would not bring any stability or decrease in violence to Iraq.

Hmmm.  What security gains could Biden mean?  The gains made by US troops under David Petraeus and the surge?  That couldn’t possibly be what Biden means.  After all, Bush’s tenacity in defeating the terrorists and giving Iraq a chance to stand on its own was doomed to failure.  Harry Reid already surrendered, as Biden should remember.

I’m curious as to whether Biden mentioned his plan to divide up Iraq into easily-digestible segments for radical terrorists to Nouri al-Maliki.  Biden was already unpopular in Iraq over this inexplicably obtuse plan, which Sam Brownback also championed during the Republican primaries.  That’s never stopped Biden before from demanding that his opinions get heard even when ridiculous, but perhaps he’s learned a lesson — or maybe Obama told him to forget the partition plan.

All snark aside, Biden’s statements sound somewhat optimistic for those of us who want to see Iraq succeed over the next several years.   It’s a definite retreat from fixed-timetable withdrawals, although that’s less of an issue now that Iraq has mostly gotten control of its own territory.  They’ll still need plenty of air and naval assistance for at least a decade, and the SOFA has enough flexibility for Obama and Maliki to adjust American military levels to suit the situation.  The Left will have a fit, but Biden’s signaling that Obama intends to make use of that flexibility, and that’s a good thing for both Iraq and the US.  (via Q&O)

Is Obama a real post-partisan?

I like David Brooks, and he’s about as conservative as anyone with a regular column in the New York Times could be, but I’d classify him as center-right at best.  George Will and Bill Kristol are certainly conservative, but Will doesn’t dig into the partisan warfare, preferring to remain on policy more than politics.  Kristol, though, is a man for the trenches, a stalwart on both policy and politics.

Kristol’s presence impresses me the most.  Had Obama just wanted a conservative “beard”, he could have stuck with Brooks and invited Doug Kmiec.  The entire meeting is somewhat of a surprise, but Kristol’s presence indicates that Obama wanted it to be taken seriously.

Will it change Obama’s direction?  Of course not.  Obama will do what Obama wants to do.  I’d guess that he’s hoping at best to take some of the nastiness out of the punditry to come over the next few months.  It’s not as easy to rip your friends as it is your opponents, and Obama wants a base of goodwill for his first 100 days to give him some breathing space.  It makes some sense, but knowing Kristol as I do (slightly personally, but I’ve read him for years), I don’t think it will work if Obama runs to the left on economics and foreign policy — nor should it.

The jobless rate just hit its highest level in 16 years, 7.2%, which means more than 11 million Americans are unemployed. So the Democratic House...

Read Full Article

But, alas, his first legislative priority is a stimulus package for trial lawyers and liberal-feminist special interest groups. The only things these two bills will stimulate is more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States.

President-elect Obama has promised to sign these bills if the Senate passes them. They are loaded with real money, so they are a big payback to the lawyers and feminists who supported him and the Democrats in 2008.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would eliminate the current statute of limitations (either 180 or 300 days, depending on the state of employment) on discrimination claims so that a worker can sue in federal court for alleged pay discrimination 20 years earlier.

This bill would reverse the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would remove existing statutory caps and allow for unlimited money damages to be awarded, even without proof of discriminatory intent.

It would mandate new federal "guidelines" about the relative worth of different types of jobs, a long-sought feminist goal called "comparable worth," which means imposing wage control by freezing wages of jobs traditionally held by men and inflating wages of jobs traditionally held by women.

Shocker: Berg lawsuit denied by Supreme Court

I haven’t seen any reporting on this development, but Philip Berg announced late yesterday that the Supreme Court has refused to hear his lawsuit on Barack Obama’s status as a natural-born citizen.  Berg provides no links to any opinion, but the court docket shows that they indeed denied him certiorari.  Berg doesn’t sound happy, needless to say:

Berg said, “I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution.

I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out.  The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.

Really?  And here I thought that was the one involving the eye on the back of the one-dollar bill.  Or perhaps the “culture of corruption” argument the Democrats used in 2006 to pretend that all corruption was Republican while one of their Congressmen hid $90,000 of kickback cash in his freezer.  Or the JFK assassination conspiracy theories.  Or, for that matter, Berg’s own 9/11 Trutherism.

Berg swears to continue the fight, apparently with the same enthusiasm he uses to convince people that the government really masterminded the attacks in New York City and Washington DC.  He’s preparing a number of other legal challenges that will go exactly nowhere, including a lawsuit from a military officer challenging Obama’s legal authority to act as Commander in Chief.  These will make for great reading and long comment threads on slow news days, but otherwise will be entirely pointless except as a commercial enterprise for Berg.

Hopefully, whatever opinion was generated from this denial will shortly become available.  In the interim, one can guess that it amounted to, “You have got to be kidding me.”

The rest of the world may [1] talk a good game when it comes to ending their use of carbon based energy, but [2] the reality is a completely different story. While the European Union lectures us on global warming, [3] Germany is busy building 27 coal-fired plants by 2020 and [4] Italy plans to increase its reliance on coal from 14% today to 33% in just five years. In all of Europe, [5] 40 new major coal power plants are set to be built in the next five years. The same realities are dictating behavior in the rest of the world as well. In 2006 alone, [6] China completed enough coal power plants to match all of Britain’s capacity. [7] India plans to boost coal production by 50% by 2012 and quadruple it by 2030. Moving to oil, Brazil, whose beautiful beaches rival or surpass anything in California or Florida, [8] recently discovered a huge underwater oil field and is moving quickly to begin drilling. In Asia, [9] China and Japan were able to put aside centuries of mistrust to come to an agreement on how to drill and share oil in waters in between their countries.

The world’s actions, more than their words, show they understand that economic growth requires plentiful and inexpensive energy. When the Senate questions President-elect Barack Obama’s energy secretary nominee Steven Chu [10] today, they owe it to the American people to find out if Chu understands these realities. Questions to draw Chu out include:

Gasoline Prices: Last September Chu made the statement that “[11] somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which at the time exceeded $8.00 a gallon. in light of the fact that [12] high gasoline prices hurt everyone, especially those with low incomes, and weaken the overall economy, will Chu speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?

Coal-Fired Electricity: Chu has also stated that American electricity prices are “[13] anomalously low” and that “[14] coal is my worst nightmare,” largely due to its contribution to global warming. Coal is the one energy source America has in overwhelming abundance, and it currently provides 50 percent of America’s electricity. Without it, electric bills would be much higher. Speaking of coal power, Obama even said, “[15] Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” As secretary of energy, will Chu support coal-fired electric generation in order to provide affordable electricity for the American people?

Alternative Energy: Despite [16] decades of subsidies, [17] alternative energies such as wind and solar power contribute only 1% of our nation’s energy needs. No matter how hard they wish it, the fact is [18] it will take decades, not years, to transition to alternative energies. Furthermore, the role of the Department of Energy in trying to accelerate the process by picking winners and losers among emerging alternatives is one with a [19] disappointing track record. Will Chu take a realistic approach toward alternative energy sources, with particular regard to the continued need for conventional energy supplies until such time as alternatives are ready to replace them?

EPA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide: Last July, the Department of Energy spoke out against the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). As secretary of energy, will Chu continue to be a voice of economic reason and energy policy rationality on this and other problematic global warming measures?

Nuclear Energy: Chu has publicly recognized the critical role of nuclear energy in meeting our nation’s growing energy demand. He has also suggested that with nuclear fuel recycling, a permanent geologic repository at [20] Yucca Mountain is not essential. What is Chu’s position on the scientific viability of Yucca Mountain, and does he support allowing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete its review of the Department of Energy’s permit application for Yucca Mountain?

This morning the [21] Washington Post took the Senate to task for the extremely weak questioning they have given Obama’s nominees so far: “Confirmation hearings offer an opportunity for nominees to lay out, to the extent possible, their views about the policy and managerial challenges they will confront, and for lawmakers to lay down markers on issues that matter to them. This is true even — maybe even especially — when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the White House.” Considering energy’s intimate relationship with the economy, Chu’s nomination is a great opportunity for the Senate to start doing the job Americans sent them to Washington to do.

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

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/13/morning-bell-will-chu-let-america-power-up/

No phrase represents more of a triumph of hope over experience than the phrase "Middle East peace process." A close second might be the...

Read Full Article

Since everybody seems to be criticizing Israel for its military response to the rockets being fired into the country from the Gaza Strip, let me add my criticisms as well. The Israelis traded land for peace, but they have never gotten the peace, so they should take back the land.

Maybe a couple of generations of Palestinians in Gaza living in peace under Israeli occupation and a couple of generations of the occupation troops squelching the terrorists — "militants" for those of you who are squeamish — would set up conditions where the Palestinians would be free to vote on whether they would like to remain occupied or to have their own state — minus terrorists and their rockets.

So-called "world opinion" has been a largely negative factor in this situation. Nothing is easier than for people living in peace and safety in Paris or Rome to call for a "cease-fire" after the Israelis retaliate against people who are firing rockets into their country.

The time to cease fire was before the rockets were fired. What do calls for "cease-fire" and "negotiations" do? They lower the price of launching attacks. This is true not only in the Middle East, but in other parts of the world as well.

Anywhere in the world, attacks such as those on Israel today would not only have risked retaliation, but invasion and annihilation of the government that launched those attacks.

Today, so-called "world opinion" not only limits the price to be paid for aggression or terrorism, it has even led to the self-indulgence of third parties talking pretty talk about limiting the response of those who are attacked to what is "proportionate."

By this reasoning, we should not have declared war on Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor. We should have gone over to Japan, bombed one of their harbors — and let it go at that. Does anyone imagine that this would have led to Japan's becoming as peaceful today as it has become after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Read Full Article

Anti-Israel protest in San Francisco entirely predictable