In the End, There Is Only the Debt [Victor Davis Hanson]
Amid all the fighting over health care, Obama's new promises, the Israeli spat, the Frum controversy, et al., looms the national debt. We can ignore it; get angry at it and say, "What the hell, I'll quadruple it!"; have our "experts" write sophistic treatises about how it either doesn't matter or is in truth good; hear our politicians claim it is secondary to the passing of a "progressive" agenda; or secretly smile that its service will require higher taxes and more "redistributive change"; but in the end, what we as a nation collectively owe others and ourselves transcends politics.Cranky 19th-century-minded farmers used to preach about the tentacles of low interest. Apparently they had this strange idea that when interest rates went too low, the uninformed mob-like masses borrowed too much — and the resulting live-for-today demand for cheap money forced the once-endless pool of ready loans to dry up and interest to rise — and a few smarter people were sticking around to profit when this cycle played out like clockwork.
In short, the United States is floating far more loans than ever before in peacetime, and for longer scheduled durations, because interest rates are only a quarter of what they have been in the past. But this theory that we can endlessly multiply the size of our debt because the service costs remain low and static is a prescription for disaster — like the credit-card introductory offer of 2 to 3 percent for 6 months that hooks the naive into charging thousands of dollars, only to end up without the means to service the debt when the rate climbs over 20 percent. For a technocracy that is Ivy League certified and brags about its competency, we have fallen into the age-old trap that snares the naive ARM house buyer, the teenaged MasterCard mega-borrower, and the "free" coupon holder who heads headlong to Vegas.
That we are borrowing now at cheap interest hundreds of billions for things that are unnecessary or counterproductive will only make it worse, psychologically, when we have to pay it all back with high interest. It reminds me of the boom-to-bust neighbor who bought his superfluous super-duper, hydra-headed, metallic red-painted hydraulic vine-cutter with easy farm loans in the late 1970s and, when headed for bankruptcy in the 1980s, looked at the now rusted, useless contraption in his barnyard and sighed to me, "And I'm still paying 17 percent on that sucker!"
Thugocracy Whipsaws Capitalism [Andy McCarthy]
The notion that the pain of Obamacare would not really be felt for a few years has always been silly. It won't be fully felt, but he economy is dynamic. Corporations have to plan today for the conditions of tomorrow. More to the point, public corporations with disclosure obligations under the securities laws have to disclose today when developments change their outlook for tomorrow. Hence, AT&T's announcement that Obamacare will force it to take a $1 billion dollar charge — the most alarming (but entirely predictable) bad news in a parade that, the Wall Street Journal's editors note, "includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million."
But here is the most frightful news yet about our new reality: People's Commissar Henry Waxman is now planning to haul the companies before his committee because their disclosures fail to play along with the our Leftist rulers' script that Obamacare "will expand coverage and bring down costs."
As the Journal's editors observe:
Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.
Let me echo that. I worked for many years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in whose backyard was Wall Street. If a company like AT&T failed to make a legally mandated restatement of its financial position while continuing to participate in the capital markets, it would be investigated and the responsible management officials would likely find themselves prosecuted while the SEC, concurrently, went after the company and its officiallys in civil enforcement suits. There are prosecutors and investigators who would salivate at the prospect of doing such a career-making case.
If we are now under a system where disclosure gets you a public whipping and other threats by the Powers That Be while nondisclosure promises the ruinous expenses of defending against criminal investigations and civil enforcement, this is no longer anything but a thugocracy
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Obama Hearts Targeted Killings ...
This is interesting, coming from the Obama team ....
Of course, if the Bush team put this out, the left would be howling for a "reckoning".
In any event, the Israeli's should cut and paste this legal analsyis for the next time they are accused of targeted killings and disproportionate response ...
Harold Koh on Targeted Killing of Terrorists [Ed Whelan]
Having recently highlighted international-law professor Kenneth Anderson’s concern that State Department legal adviser (and radical transnationalist) Harold Koh may well have reserved judgment on the important question whether the Obama administration’s targeted killing of terrorists via drone warfare is lawful, I am pleased to pass along Anderson’s strong praise for a speech that Koh gave on the topic yesterday evening. The text of the speech is available here. The initial press release about the speech contains these statements by Koh:
[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:
- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…
[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’
Of course, if the Bush team put this out, the left would be howling for a "reckoning".
In any event, the Israeli's should cut and paste this legal analsyis for the next time they are accused of targeted killings and disproportionate response ...
Harold Koh on Targeted Killing of Terrorists [Ed Whelan]
Having recently highlighted international-law professor Kenneth Anderson’s concern that State Department legal adviser (and radical transnationalist) Harold Koh may well have reserved judgment on the important question whether the Obama administration’s targeted killing of terrorists via drone warfare is lawful, I am pleased to pass along Anderson’s strong praise for a speech that Koh gave on the topic yesterday evening. The text of the speech is available here. The initial press release about the speech contains these statements by Koh:
[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:
- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and
- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…
[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’
Shocka ! Nancy Pelosi Was Right
CBO Admits that 1.5 Million ‘Stimulus Jobs’ Estimate Ignored Deepening Recession, Misspent Funds [Brian Riedl]
A few weeks ago, I posted that CBO’s estimate that the stimulus created saved 1.5 million jobs was not based on any actual examination of the post-stimulus economy. Instead, CBO essentially re-released their initial prediction that the stimulus would work, and presented that as proof that it did work.
This is like a weather forecaster saying that the high yesterday was 65 degrees, because that is what had been predicted — even though it actually never topped 50 degrees.
Now, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they never actual examined this stimulus bills’ affect on the economy. Responding to a questioner following a recent speech, he admitted that the CBO’s jobs count was “essentially repeating the same exercise” as their initial projections. When asked if this means their jobs projections would have ignored any failures of stimulus spending to perform as CBO predicted, Mr. Elmendorf responded “that’s right.” (Exchange begins at 38:20.)
CBO never actually counted the jobs. Nor did their analysis take into account the rising unemployment rate. Or the economic figures. Or how effectively the money was spent. They merely assumed this government spending “must have” saved 1.5 million jobs.
An asteroid could have destroyed the entire Unites States outside of Washington, D.C., and (as long as the money was spent), the CBO’s model would have still claimed the stimulus saved 1.5 million jobs
More specifically, CBO first programmed their economic model to automatically assume that stimulus spending creates/saves millions of jobs. And then (surprise!), their model concluded that the stimulus created/saved millions of jobs. This is a classic case of the “begging the question” fallacy, also known as assuming what one is trying to prove.
Calculating the stimulus’ impact on jobs is never easy or precise. Yet any jobs count that ignores the actual post-stimulus economy, and instead uses a computer model that is pre-programmed to guarantee a specific jobs figure should not be taken seriously.
More here.
— Brian Riedl is Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
A few weeks ago, I posted that CBO’s estimate that the stimulus created saved 1.5 million jobs was not based on any actual examination of the post-stimulus economy. Instead, CBO essentially re-released their initial prediction that the stimulus would work, and presented that as proof that it did work.
This is like a weather forecaster saying that the high yesterday was 65 degrees, because that is what had been predicted — even though it actually never topped 50 degrees.
Now, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they never actual examined this stimulus bills’ affect on the economy. Responding to a questioner following a recent speech, he admitted that the CBO’s jobs count was “essentially repeating the same exercise” as their initial projections. When asked if this means their jobs projections would have ignored any failures of stimulus spending to perform as CBO predicted, Mr. Elmendorf responded “that’s right.” (Exchange begins at 38:20.)
CBO never actually counted the jobs. Nor did their analysis take into account the rising unemployment rate. Or the economic figures. Or how effectively the money was spent. They merely assumed this government spending “must have” saved 1.5 million jobs.
An asteroid could have destroyed the entire Unites States outside of Washington, D.C., and (as long as the money was spent), the CBO’s model would have still claimed the stimulus saved 1.5 million jobs
More specifically, CBO first programmed their economic model to automatically assume that stimulus spending creates/saves millions of jobs. And then (surprise!), their model concluded that the stimulus created/saved millions of jobs. This is a classic case of the “begging the question” fallacy, also known as assuming what one is trying to prove.
Calculating the stimulus’ impact on jobs is never easy or precise. Yet any jobs count that ignores the actual post-stimulus economy, and instead uses a computer model that is pre-programmed to guarantee a specific jobs figure should not be taken seriously.
More here.
— Brian Riedl is Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
Promises, Promises redux
and many people actually believed him !
This Is Not What Barack Obama Campaigned On [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Rick Santorum writes:
Did he promise rising health-insurance premiums, new taxes on employers and investment, higher Medicare taxes, a government mandate that everyone buy insurance, more people on government-run health plans, trillions of dollars more in federal spending, backroom deals to buy votes, and (according to my analysis of the legislation) federal abortion subsidies that would increase the number of innocent deaths every year?
Obama has fulfilled his dream of making history, but he certainly has not delivered the change he promised the American people in 2008.
As a candidate, Obama promised to be bipartisan. But, for the first time in history, Congress has enacted an expansion of the government's role in our lives on the scale of the Social Security and Medicare programs with only Democratic votes. Both Social Security and Medicare passed with broad bipartisan support.
Obama promised to unite a divided America. But he has been completely dismissive of well-informed Americans' overwhelming opposition to this measure, forcing it down their throats.
Obama promised fiscal responsibility. But he has increased government spending over the next 10 years by more than $2 trillion, and his budget will add almost $10 trillion to the national debt over that period.
If record spending, an explosion of government, and the imposition of debt on the next generation don't faze you, maybe this will: Obama and the Democrats aren't done yet....
What's in the Air [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I have no interest in playing a game of who-is-fanning-the-flames more, but when the president continues to mock his critics — even after he signed his legislation — can you blame a guy in Iowa for saying: "The government doesn't want to hear us. We have to make them listen"?
The Washington Post's piece this morning is striking for the fact that there is no story to it. People disagree with what just happened in Washington. Guess what? It's a free country. That's still allowed here. Now can we all go back to our regularly scheduled debating of ideas and the work of democracy without giving unstable people out there ideas? Please?
An e-mail:
It’s a sad day when the President of the United States uses taxpayer dollars to travel around the country ridiculing and provoking those taxpayers with whom he disagrees, but this is what we get when the “cool” guy wins. How I long for the days of a “cowboy” President I didn’t always agree with, but always respected.
Nancy Pelosi Was Right [Peter Kirsanow]
Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said that we have to pass the health-care-reform bill in order to find out what's in it.
Now that the bill has been safely passed and signed into law, the mainstream press is gradually revealing the scores of delightful provisions tucked away in the 2,700 page abomination: job-killing taxes on businesses, innovation-killing taxes on medical products, suffocating regulations on individual freedoms, wealth-sapping taxes on the middle-class, unprecedented intrusions on personal privacy, unconstitutional mandates on individuals, racially discriminatory preferences for favored groups, a Ponzi-scheme-on-steroids financing mechanism, and spending on a galactic, incomprehensible scale.
And that's just the first 600 pages. But somewhere in this heaping pile of manure there just has to be a pony.
This Is Not What Barack Obama Campaigned On [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Rick Santorum writes:
Did he promise rising health-insurance premiums, new taxes on employers and investment, higher Medicare taxes, a government mandate that everyone buy insurance, more people on government-run health plans, trillions of dollars more in federal spending, backroom deals to buy votes, and (according to my analysis of the legislation) federal abortion subsidies that would increase the number of innocent deaths every year?
Obama has fulfilled his dream of making history, but he certainly has not delivered the change he promised the American people in 2008.
As a candidate, Obama promised to be bipartisan. But, for the first time in history, Congress has enacted an expansion of the government's role in our lives on the scale of the Social Security and Medicare programs with only Democratic votes. Both Social Security and Medicare passed with broad bipartisan support.
Obama promised to unite a divided America. But he has been completely dismissive of well-informed Americans' overwhelming opposition to this measure, forcing it down their throats.
Obama promised fiscal responsibility. But he has increased government spending over the next 10 years by more than $2 trillion, and his budget will add almost $10 trillion to the national debt over that period.
If record spending, an explosion of government, and the imposition of debt on the next generation don't faze you, maybe this will: Obama and the Democrats aren't done yet....
What's in the Air [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I have no interest in playing a game of who-is-fanning-the-flames more, but when the president continues to mock his critics — even after he signed his legislation — can you blame a guy in Iowa for saying: "The government doesn't want to hear us. We have to make them listen"?
The Washington Post's piece this morning is striking for the fact that there is no story to it. People disagree with what just happened in Washington. Guess what? It's a free country. That's still allowed here. Now can we all go back to our regularly scheduled debating of ideas and the work of democracy without giving unstable people out there ideas? Please?
An e-mail:
It’s a sad day when the President of the United States uses taxpayer dollars to travel around the country ridiculing and provoking those taxpayers with whom he disagrees, but this is what we get when the “cool” guy wins. How I long for the days of a “cowboy” President I didn’t always agree with, but always respected.
Nancy Pelosi Was Right [Peter Kirsanow]
Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said that we have to pass the health-care-reform bill in order to find out what's in it.
Now that the bill has been safely passed and signed into law, the mainstream press is gradually revealing the scores of delightful provisions tucked away in the 2,700 page abomination: job-killing taxes on businesses, innovation-killing taxes on medical products, suffocating regulations on individual freedoms, wealth-sapping taxes on the middle-class, unprecedented intrusions on personal privacy, unconstitutional mandates on individuals, racially discriminatory preferences for favored groups, a Ponzi-scheme-on-steroids financing mechanism, and spending on a galactic, incomprehensible scale.
And that's just the first 600 pages. But somewhere in this heaping pile of manure there just has to be a pony.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Obama Skewered over Israel Mistreatment
by Charles Krauthammer; who makes some very good points about the White House not allowing coverage of the meetings between President Obama and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu:
They meet for several hours — no press, no pictures, no joint appearances, as if the prime minister of Israel is toxic, as if somehow he represents a pariah state.
It feeds into the perception around the world, particularly in the Arab world and in some elements in Europe, of Israel as a pariah state.
Over what? This example of the Shepherd Hotel: The eastern part of Jerusalem has Jewish neighborhoods, Arab neighborhoods, and mixed neighborhoods. People are purchasing land, selling it all the time.
There are about 200,000 Jews in the eastern area of Jerusalem. Imagine a city in the United States of that size where you have every day construction, permits issued, as a matter of routine. So, of course, there's going to be an announcement here or there. It's a breathing, living city.
The idea that there should be no construction or no purchase or selling of houses is absurd. It would mean strangling the Jewish areas in Jerusalem and essentially extinguishing them ultimately.
And this idea that it's Arab east Jerusalem: It houses the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter. It's odd, isn't it, that you have the Jewish Quarter in what people are calling Arab east Jerusalem? It has been — continually there has been Jewish habitation for over 2,000 years.
And the only reason it was Arab was [that] for 20 years [1948 — 1967] the Jordanian army expelled all the Jews! In '67 the Jews returned, and that's why it's a mixed area in the eastern side of Jerusalem. It's Jewish and it's Arab.
On the allegation that Jerusalem construction announcements were timed by the Israeli government to wreck negotiations with the Palestinians:
It's absurd. It's a large city with its own municipal government with its own [commissions] and councils. It's got construction transactions all over. Israel is incredibly bureaucratic. Every construction requires 20 approvals.
So on any afternoon you are going to have an announcement of some sort. It would happen in any city of that size anywhere in America.
They meet for several hours — no press, no pictures, no joint appearances, as if the prime minister of Israel is toxic, as if somehow he represents a pariah state.
It feeds into the perception around the world, particularly in the Arab world and in some elements in Europe, of Israel as a pariah state.
Over what? This example of the Shepherd Hotel: The eastern part of Jerusalem has Jewish neighborhoods, Arab neighborhoods, and mixed neighborhoods. People are purchasing land, selling it all the time.
There are about 200,000 Jews in the eastern area of Jerusalem. Imagine a city in the United States of that size where you have every day construction, permits issued, as a matter of routine. So, of course, there's going to be an announcement here or there. It's a breathing, living city.
The idea that there should be no construction or no purchase or selling of houses is absurd. It would mean strangling the Jewish areas in Jerusalem and essentially extinguishing them ultimately.
And this idea that it's Arab east Jerusalem: It houses the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter. It's odd, isn't it, that you have the Jewish Quarter in what people are calling Arab east Jerusalem? It has been — continually there has been Jewish habitation for over 2,000 years.
And the only reason it was Arab was [that] for 20 years [1948 — 1967] the Jordanian army expelled all the Jews! In '67 the Jews returned, and that's why it's a mixed area in the eastern side of Jerusalem. It's Jewish and it's Arab.
On the allegation that Jerusalem construction announcements were timed by the Israeli government to wreck negotiations with the Palestinians:
It's absurd. It's a large city with its own municipal government with its own [commissions] and councils. It's got construction transactions all over. Israel is incredibly bureaucratic. Every construction requires 20 approvals.
So on any afternoon you are going to have an announcement of some sort. It would happen in any city of that size anywhere in America.
ObamaCare may be the Law (for now), BUT
We will continue to regale you with sordid tales of terror surrounding this fiasco as they become known:
Castro Hearts Obama Mao
Castro Calls Obamacare a ‘Miracle’ [Daniel Foster]
From the Los Angeles Times:
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago."We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."
Castro called it "remarkable" that America has taken so long to move in the direction of universal coverage:
"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote.
But Fidel isn't entirely enamored of the president's leadership, however.
But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.
Georgia Governor to Appoint Special AG to Sue Over Obamacare [Daniel Foster]
Georgia governor Sonny Perdue (R.) will appoint a "special Attorney General" to sue the federal government over the individual mandate.
Perdue made the announcement a day after state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat running for governor, told Perdue, a Republican, he would not pursue a lawsuit.
“He’s refusing to do that and I can’t force him to do that,” Perdue said of Baker.
Meanwhile, Georgia Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd this morning sent Perdue a lengthy Open Records Act request, demanding copies of correspondence between his office and Republican organizations around the country.
The governor said the state constitution gives him the leeway to appoint a special attorney general if the elected attorney general fails to carry out the wishes of the governor.
Perdue said several groups of attorneys have volunteered to handle the state’s lawsuit for free. He said he expects to make a decision on a team as soon as possible, but did not set a deadline. Perdue has the support of Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and the Senate Republican Caucus, all of whom said late Wednesday the support the governor’s efforts.
Full story here.
Illegal Lobbying by White House in Support of Obamacare? [Ed Whelan]
A recent article by Richard Grenell on the CBS News website, written before last Sunday’s House of Representatives vote on Obamacare, reports that “White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle has been feverishly sending out unsolicited email messages to federal employees in an effort to build support for President Barack Obama’s health reform package over the last several weeks.” The report states that DeParle’s actions are “not only unethical but possibly illegal.”
A source of mine very knowledgeable in this area of the law sees the legal question as quite straightforward: “If the e-mails were sent from a government system, or on government time, and if they did urge anyone [other than someone in Congress] to act to get the bill passed, it unquestionably would be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1913.” (Section 1913 provides that it is a federal crime illegal to use appropriated funds, “in the absence of express authorization by Congress,…to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.”)
According to an update to Grenell’s article, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, responded to his article by contending that the federal employees had signed up to receive e-mail messages about Obamacare. But that issue, my source emphasizes, is utterly irrelevant to the legal question whether DeParle violated federal criminal law: Under section 1913, DeParle couldn’t use a government system or government time to send e-mails to anyone (other than someone in Congress) urging action to help get Obamacare passed. That’s true whether or not the recipient was a government employee and whether or not the recipient signed up to receive the e-mails.
Krauthammer's Take [NRO Staff]
On the Democrats’ move to fix problems with Obamacare:
I think the real problem is there is so much in the bill that is delegated to the bureaucrats, to the Department of Health and Human Services, for example.
For example, we don't know what will be the required basket of coverage that any plan is going to have to have in order to be – quote — "acceptable" to the federal government and thus to [be eligible to] receive a subsidy if you buy it. That's going to be determined in the future by the secretary of HHS, and that could be arbitrary.
I mean, if you are a 70-year-old widow, are you going to need drug-abuse rehab coverage? If you are a single male, are you going to need obstetrics? Of course not. But all of this will be decreed by a bureaucrat, unelected. It's not in the law now, it will be decided. And there is a lot of this which is going to be decided.
And the other example of this, and the one that people are really worried about, is these committees that will decide which is acceptable or the best treatment. Once you have a committee like that — as of now it's advisory, but in the future it could easily become compulsory as costs rise, as happened in Britain, which has the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NICE committee it's called, which decides who gets drugs and cancer [treatment]. If it's expensive, you don't get it.
And that's what's in the bill but not written in detail today. It will all be decided in the future by unelected committees and bureaucrats.
Castro Hearts Obama Mao
Castro Calls Obamacare a ‘Miracle’ [Daniel Foster]
From the Los Angeles Times:
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago."We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."
Castro called it "remarkable" that America has taken so long to move in the direction of universal coverage:
"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote.
But Fidel isn't entirely enamored of the president's leadership, however.
But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.
Georgia Governor to Appoint Special AG to Sue Over Obamacare [Daniel Foster]
Georgia governor Sonny Perdue (R.) will appoint a "special Attorney General" to sue the federal government over the individual mandate.
Perdue made the announcement a day after state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat running for governor, told Perdue, a Republican, he would not pursue a lawsuit.
“He’s refusing to do that and I can’t force him to do that,” Perdue said of Baker.
Meanwhile, Georgia Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd this morning sent Perdue a lengthy Open Records Act request, demanding copies of correspondence between his office and Republican organizations around the country.
The governor said the state constitution gives him the leeway to appoint a special attorney general if the elected attorney general fails to carry out the wishes of the governor.
Perdue said several groups of attorneys have volunteered to handle the state’s lawsuit for free. He said he expects to make a decision on a team as soon as possible, but did not set a deadline. Perdue has the support of Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and the Senate Republican Caucus, all of whom said late Wednesday the support the governor’s efforts.
Full story here.
Illegal Lobbying by White House in Support of Obamacare? [Ed Whelan]
A recent article by Richard Grenell on the CBS News website, written before last Sunday’s House of Representatives vote on Obamacare, reports that “White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle has been feverishly sending out unsolicited email messages to federal employees in an effort to build support for President Barack Obama’s health reform package over the last several weeks.” The report states that DeParle’s actions are “not only unethical but possibly illegal.”
A source of mine very knowledgeable in this area of the law sees the legal question as quite straightforward: “If the e-mails were sent from a government system, or on government time, and if they did urge anyone [other than someone in Congress] to act to get the bill passed, it unquestionably would be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1913.” (Section 1913 provides that it is a federal crime illegal to use appropriated funds, “in the absence of express authorization by Congress,…to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.”)
According to an update to Grenell’s article, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, responded to his article by contending that the federal employees had signed up to receive e-mail messages about Obamacare. But that issue, my source emphasizes, is utterly irrelevant to the legal question whether DeParle violated federal criminal law: Under section 1913, DeParle couldn’t use a government system or government time to send e-mails to anyone (other than someone in Congress) urging action to help get Obamacare passed. That’s true whether or not the recipient was a government employee and whether or not the recipient signed up to receive the e-mails.
Krauthammer's Take [NRO Staff]
On the Democrats’ move to fix problems with Obamacare:
I think the real problem is there is so much in the bill that is delegated to the bureaucrats, to the Department of Health and Human Services, for example.
For example, we don't know what will be the required basket of coverage that any plan is going to have to have in order to be – quote — "acceptable" to the federal government and thus to [be eligible to] receive a subsidy if you buy it. That's going to be determined in the future by the secretary of HHS, and that could be arbitrary.
I mean, if you are a 70-year-old widow, are you going to need drug-abuse rehab coverage? If you are a single male, are you going to need obstetrics? Of course not. But all of this will be decreed by a bureaucrat, unelected. It's not in the law now, it will be decided. And there is a lot of this which is going to be decided.
And the other example of this, and the one that people are really worried about, is these committees that will decide which is acceptable or the best treatment. Once you have a committee like that — as of now it's advisory, but in the future it could easily become compulsory as costs rise, as happened in Britain, which has the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NICE committee it's called, which decides who gets drugs and cancer [treatment]. If it's expensive, you don't get it.
And that's what's in the bill but not written in detail today. It will all be decided in the future by unelected committees and bureaucrats.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Moral Bankruptcy of Obama & Hilary's Mideast "Policy"
If you can call their Israel bashing a policy.
Consider their silence about the Palestinian Death Cult:
Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate mistake By ITAMAR MARCUS AND NAN JACQUES ZILBERDIK 24/03/2010 10:42
This message to the Palestinian Authority from the US, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.
Someone in the State Department is giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imprecise information about Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
On Monday night, in her speech to AIPAC, Clinton condemned Hamas for renaming “a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” saying it was “wrong and must be condemned.”
On the other hand Clinton “commended” PA Chairman Abbas.
Clinton’s condemnation of Hamas alone, because the municipality that named the square after the terrorist is run by Hamas, was erroneous. For in fact, it has been the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas, who have been leading the Palestinians in glorifying Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist bus hijacker who was responsible for the killing of 37 civilians in 1978, whom Clinton accurately called the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.”
Palestinian Media Watch has documented the continuous Mughrabi veneration by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in recent years, both in connection to the square near Ramallah in the West Bank and in many other contexts. THE FOLLOWING are 15 examples of the glorification of this one particular terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, five by Abbas himself, five by the Palestinian Authority or its leaders, and five by Fatah or its leaders:
1. It was Abbas himself who defended the naming of the square after Mughrabi: “I do not deny it. Of course we want to name a square after her.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]
2. It was Abbas himself who on December 31, 2009, honored that same terrorist by sponsoring a celebration of her birthday. [PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 29, 2009]
3. It was Abbas’s Fatah youth movement who prepared the Mughrabi square for the ceremony. [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 8, 2010]
4. It was Abbas himself who funded a computer center after that same terrorist. “Present at the event were President Mahmoud Abbas’s advisor... inaugurating the [Dalal Mughrabi] center, funded by a contribution from the President’s [Abbas’s] Office.” [Al-Ayyam, May 5, 2009]
5. It was Abbas who sent his secretary-general of the Presidency, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, to speak in his name, and called the terrorist the “bridge over which we pass on the way to our freedom.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 9, 2010]
6. It was Abbas himself who sponsored high school graduation ceremonies in honor of the same terrorist Mughrabi at which “the representative of the President [Abbas] … reviewed the heroic life of [Mughrabi] the Shahida (Martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 24, 2008]
7. It was Abbas’s minister of culture, Siham Barghouti (Fatah) who defended naming the square after the terrorist: “Honoring them [the martyrs] this way is the least we can give them, and this is our right.” [Al-Ayyam, January 11, 2010]
8. It was Abbas’s PA TV that opened its broadcasting this month on March 11, the anniversary of the attack, by praising the terror attack as: “A glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people.” [PA TV Fatah March 11, 2010]
9. It was not Hamas but Fatah, the party headed by Abbas, which decided to go ahead and dedicate that square after “a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis” and it was Fatah leaders who held up a banner which read: “On the anniversary of the Coastal Road Operation we renew our commitment and our oath that we will not stray from the path of the shahids (martyrs), Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square, Shabiba (Fatah) students’ movement] [Al-Quds, March 12, 2010]
10. It was Abbas’s Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi who said at the square’s dedication: “We shall not submit to any threats, and we are here today to celebrate our history and our battle in naming the square after Mughrabi.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 12, 2010]
11. It was Abbas’s Fatah spokesman Dr. Faiz Abu Aytah who emphasized “the right of Fatah, of the Palestinian Authority, and of the Palestinian people to celebrate the anniversary of her [Mughrabi’s] martyrdom... Fatah is proud of Dalal’s affiliation with it as a movement.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 11, 2010]
12. It was Abbas’s PA TV that interviewed the sister of the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” on the anniversary of the terror attack introducing her as follows: “Now, dear viewers, we move on to a glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people… Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian shahida (martyr), has become a symbol and model.” Rashida Mughrabi, sister of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi responded: “This is a day of glory and pride for our Palestinian people.” [PA TV March 11, 2010]
13. It was Abbas’s PA that held a soccer tournament named after the same “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), August 8, 2008]
14. It was Abbas’s Fatah that held a summer camp named after the same Mughrabi “out of honor and admiration for the shahida (martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 23, 2008]
15. It was at the opening ceremony of Abbas’s Fatah’s Sixth General Conference where Fatah leaders responded with applause when former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) honored Mughrabi and her co-terrorists: “We have in our midst the hero Khaled Abu Usbah, hero of the operation [terror attack] led by the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi [applause]. We salute him and welcome him. And [we salute] the hero, the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal. [He shouts:] All the glory! All the glory! All the glory! All the sisters here are Dalal’s sisters.” [PA TV (Fatah), August 4, 2009]
MOST OF the above terror glorification by Abbas and Fatah has happened in the last few months; and it has all happened in the last two and a half years under Abbas. All has been reported by Palestinian Media Watch. Yet, tragically, people in the US State Department are not giving Secretary of State Clinton accurate information about Palestinian Authority President Abbas.
When Hamas is condemned for the terror glorification while it is Abbas and the PA who are guilty, the message to the Palestinian leadership is that they can continue with their incitement to hatred and violence, and no one will call them to account. This message to the Palestinian Authority from the United States, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch. Nan Jacques Zilberdik is an analyst at Palestinian Media Watch.
Consider their silence about the Palestinian Death Cult:
Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate mistake By ITAMAR MARCUS AND NAN JACQUES ZILBERDIK 24/03/2010 10:42
This message to the Palestinian Authority from the US, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.
Someone in the State Department is giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imprecise information about Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
On Monday night, in her speech to AIPAC, Clinton condemned Hamas for renaming “a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” saying it was “wrong and must be condemned.”
On the other hand Clinton “commended” PA Chairman Abbas.
Clinton’s condemnation of Hamas alone, because the municipality that named the square after the terrorist is run by Hamas, was erroneous. For in fact, it has been the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas, who have been leading the Palestinians in glorifying Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist bus hijacker who was responsible for the killing of 37 civilians in 1978, whom Clinton accurately called the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.”
Palestinian Media Watch has documented the continuous Mughrabi veneration by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in recent years, both in connection to the square near Ramallah in the West Bank and in many other contexts. THE FOLLOWING are 15 examples of the glorification of this one particular terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, five by Abbas himself, five by the Palestinian Authority or its leaders, and five by Fatah or its leaders:
1. It was Abbas himself who defended the naming of the square after Mughrabi: “I do not deny it. Of course we want to name a square after her.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]
2. It was Abbas himself who on December 31, 2009, honored that same terrorist by sponsoring a celebration of her birthday. [PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 29, 2009]
3. It was Abbas’s Fatah youth movement who prepared the Mughrabi square for the ceremony. [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 8, 2010]
4. It was Abbas himself who funded a computer center after that same terrorist. “Present at the event were President Mahmoud Abbas’s advisor... inaugurating the [Dalal Mughrabi] center, funded by a contribution from the President’s [Abbas’s] Office.” [Al-Ayyam, May 5, 2009]
5. It was Abbas who sent his secretary-general of the Presidency, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, to speak in his name, and called the terrorist the “bridge over which we pass on the way to our freedom.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 9, 2010]
6. It was Abbas himself who sponsored high school graduation ceremonies in honor of the same terrorist Mughrabi at which “the representative of the President [Abbas] … reviewed the heroic life of [Mughrabi] the Shahida (Martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 24, 2008]
7. It was Abbas’s minister of culture, Siham Barghouti (Fatah) who defended naming the square after the terrorist: “Honoring them [the martyrs] this way is the least we can give them, and this is our right.” [Al-Ayyam, January 11, 2010]
8. It was Abbas’s PA TV that opened its broadcasting this month on March 11, the anniversary of the attack, by praising the terror attack as: “A glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people.” [PA TV Fatah March 11, 2010]
9. It was not Hamas but Fatah, the party headed by Abbas, which decided to go ahead and dedicate that square after “a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis” and it was Fatah leaders who held up a banner which read: “On the anniversary of the Coastal Road Operation we renew our commitment and our oath that we will not stray from the path of the shahids (martyrs), Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square, Shabiba (Fatah) students’ movement] [Al-Quds, March 12, 2010]
10. It was Abbas’s Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi who said at the square’s dedication: “We shall not submit to any threats, and we are here today to celebrate our history and our battle in naming the square after Mughrabi.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 12, 2010]
11. It was Abbas’s Fatah spokesman Dr. Faiz Abu Aytah who emphasized “the right of Fatah, of the Palestinian Authority, and of the Palestinian people to celebrate the anniversary of her [Mughrabi’s] martyrdom... Fatah is proud of Dalal’s affiliation with it as a movement.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 11, 2010]
12. It was Abbas’s PA TV that interviewed the sister of the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” on the anniversary of the terror attack introducing her as follows: “Now, dear viewers, we move on to a glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people… Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian shahida (martyr), has become a symbol and model.” Rashida Mughrabi, sister of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi responded: “This is a day of glory and pride for our Palestinian people.” [PA TV March 11, 2010]
13. It was Abbas’s PA that held a soccer tournament named after the same “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), August 8, 2008]
14. It was Abbas’s Fatah that held a summer camp named after the same Mughrabi “out of honor and admiration for the shahida (martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 23, 2008]
15. It was at the opening ceremony of Abbas’s Fatah’s Sixth General Conference where Fatah leaders responded with applause when former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) honored Mughrabi and her co-terrorists: “We have in our midst the hero Khaled Abu Usbah, hero of the operation [terror attack] led by the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi [applause]. We salute him and welcome him. And [we salute] the hero, the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal. [He shouts:] All the glory! All the glory! All the glory! All the sisters here are Dalal’s sisters.” [PA TV (Fatah), August 4, 2009]
MOST OF the above terror glorification by Abbas and Fatah has happened in the last few months; and it has all happened in the last two and a half years under Abbas. All has been reported by Palestinian Media Watch. Yet, tragically, people in the US State Department are not giving Secretary of State Clinton accurate information about Palestinian Authority President Abbas.
When Hamas is condemned for the terror glorification while it is Abbas and the PA who are guilty, the message to the Palestinian leadership is that they can continue with their incitement to hatred and violence, and no one will call them to account. This message to the Palestinian Authority from the United States, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch. Nan Jacques Zilberdik is an analyst at Palestinian Media Watch.
Eric Cantor gets a shout out re: Israel
A Tale of Two Meetings [Rep. Eric Cantor]
It’s a tale of two meetings.
Yesterday, I sat alongside Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, and a bipartisan group of other congressional leaders to reaffirm to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu our unequivocal support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Underlying our discussions was a clear commitment on all sides to move beyond the trivial bilateral rift the administration has inflamed over the past week — and to refocus America’s attention on truly pressing issues like Iran’s quest to obtain nuclear weapons.
A few hours later, President Obama offered a stunning contrast when he treated Mr. Netanyahu to a remarkably cooler reception at the White House. Conspicuously absent were all the niceties befitting a visiting head of state (and the leader of a critical strategic ally and historic friend to the United States, no less). No press in the room. No photo ops. No friendly gestures to suggest to the world that the United States stands with its fellow democracy at a dangerous moment for both nations.
Why the lack of a sincere effort on the part of the administration to dial back the tension? Could the White House truly be this offended by an Israeli decision to build 1,600 homes years from now in a part of its capital city that everyone understands will remain a part of Israel in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians? Or was the president simply trying to avoid difficult questions from the press? To whom was the White House sending a message — America’s allies or our enemies?
The administration’s disproportionate focus on Israel is counterproductive, because it draws attention away from the real stumbling block to peace in the Middle East: the widespread Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish State.
With the world’s collective gaze on Israel, the Palestinians continue to promote a culture antithetical to peace. This month, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square to a notorious terrorist responsible for killing 37 Israelis, including 13 children, on a bus in the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history. This is the same Palestinian Authority whose “moderate” leader was treated to a photo-op at the White House last May.
Congress has not forgotten who our true friends are in the Middle East. Yesterday, President Obama missed an opportunity to show the world that the special relationship between Israel and the United States remains strong. If the administration thinks it can bring about Mideast peace by currying favor with the Arab world at Israel’s expense, it is bound to fail.— Rep. Eric Cantor is the House Republican whip.
It’s a tale of two meetings.
Yesterday, I sat alongside Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, and a bipartisan group of other congressional leaders to reaffirm to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu our unequivocal support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Underlying our discussions was a clear commitment on all sides to move beyond the trivial bilateral rift the administration has inflamed over the past week — and to refocus America’s attention on truly pressing issues like Iran’s quest to obtain nuclear weapons.
A few hours later, President Obama offered a stunning contrast when he treated Mr. Netanyahu to a remarkably cooler reception at the White House. Conspicuously absent were all the niceties befitting a visiting head of state (and the leader of a critical strategic ally and historic friend to the United States, no less). No press in the room. No photo ops. No friendly gestures to suggest to the world that the United States stands with its fellow democracy at a dangerous moment for both nations.
Why the lack of a sincere effort on the part of the administration to dial back the tension? Could the White House truly be this offended by an Israeli decision to build 1,600 homes years from now in a part of its capital city that everyone understands will remain a part of Israel in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians? Or was the president simply trying to avoid difficult questions from the press? To whom was the White House sending a message — America’s allies or our enemies?
The administration’s disproportionate focus on Israel is counterproductive, because it draws attention away from the real stumbling block to peace in the Middle East: the widespread Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish State.
With the world’s collective gaze on Israel, the Palestinians continue to promote a culture antithetical to peace. This month, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square to a notorious terrorist responsible for killing 37 Israelis, including 13 children, on a bus in the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history. This is the same Palestinian Authority whose “moderate” leader was treated to a photo-op at the White House last May.
Congress has not forgotten who our true friends are in the Middle East. Yesterday, President Obama missed an opportunity to show the world that the special relationship between Israel and the United States remains strong. If the administration thinks it can bring about Mideast peace by currying favor with the Arab world at Israel’s expense, it is bound to fail.— Rep. Eric Cantor is the House Republican whip.
Stupid Is As (Bart) Stupak Does
Stupak’s Defense [Yuval Levin]
As Ramesh notes below, Rep. Bart Stupak, in this interview, tries to justify his view that President Obama’s executive order can change the new health-care law to keep it from funding abortions by equating that order with an executive order that President Bush signed regarding stem-cell research in 2007.
Stupak says:
Some people say this piece of paper isn't worth it, but I would remind them that in 2007, when George W. Bush signed the executive order to prevent stem-cell research, these groups that are criticizing it, they applauded it, they welcomed it; and now President Obama's going to sign an executive order once again protecting life and somehow it's not worth the paper it's written on. You can't have it both ways.
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. I was part of the team that produced Bush’s executive order, the text of which you can read here. The order was in no way designed to “prevent stem-cell research,” or to change an existing law, modify the treatment of the life question in federal law, or anything else that Stupak is suggesting President Obama's order will do. It merely instructed the National Institutes of Health to encourage the exploration of potential alternatives to embryo-destructive research.
About five years ago, advances in stem-cell research began to suggest that there might be alternative paths to producing cells with the abilities of embryonic stem cells but without requiring the destruction of embryos. President Bush wanted to encourage the exploration of those alternative avenues alongside the research that his 2001 stem-cell research funding policy enabled, and within the bounds of that policy. The Congress considered a bill that would have appropriated special funds to do so, but did not pass it. The NIH then told the White House that they could launch some efforts to encourage that research using existing funds already appropriated to the agency, but that it would help to have some specific instructions to do so, and some guidance on how. The executive order provided those.
Bush’s order did not touch on the interaction of federal law and the life question, since there’s really very little you can do on that front with an executive order—and there's basically nothing you can do on the question of abortion and public funding by executive order, given the additional burden of legal precedents on that front. That’s why Obama’s executive order in fact does nothing, as even a cursory reading of its text would make clear.
As Ramesh notes below, Rep. Bart Stupak, in this interview, tries to justify his view that President Obama’s executive order can change the new health-care law to keep it from funding abortions by equating that order with an executive order that President Bush signed regarding stem-cell research in 2007.
Stupak says:
Some people say this piece of paper isn't worth it, but I would remind them that in 2007, when George W. Bush signed the executive order to prevent stem-cell research, these groups that are criticizing it, they applauded it, they welcomed it; and now President Obama's going to sign an executive order once again protecting life and somehow it's not worth the paper it's written on. You can't have it both ways.
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. I was part of the team that produced Bush’s executive order, the text of which you can read here. The order was in no way designed to “prevent stem-cell research,” or to change an existing law, modify the treatment of the life question in federal law, or anything else that Stupak is suggesting President Obama's order will do. It merely instructed the National Institutes of Health to encourage the exploration of potential alternatives to embryo-destructive research.
About five years ago, advances in stem-cell research began to suggest that there might be alternative paths to producing cells with the abilities of embryonic stem cells but without requiring the destruction of embryos. President Bush wanted to encourage the exploration of those alternative avenues alongside the research that his 2001 stem-cell research funding policy enabled, and within the bounds of that policy. The Congress considered a bill that would have appropriated special funds to do so, but did not pass it. The NIH then told the White House that they could launch some efforts to encourage that research using existing funds already appropriated to the agency, but that it would help to have some specific instructions to do so, and some guidance on how. The executive order provided those.
Bush’s order did not touch on the interaction of federal law and the life question, since there’s really very little you can do on that front with an executive order—and there's basically nothing you can do on the question of abortion and public funding by executive order, given the additional burden of legal precedents on that front. That’s why Obama’s executive order in fact does nothing, as even a cursory reading of its text would make clear.
Obama's Visceral Dislike of Israel
This piece by VDH describes clearly where Obama & Co's warped view comes from:
Israel: One of Many [Victor Davis Hanson]
Some strong supporters of both Obama and Israel are disappointed in the latest hysterical Biden-Clinton-Obama smack-down over the settlement issue. But why, I don't know — this is a logical, not an aberrant, development from President Obama.
Once it was thought to be unprincipled guilt-by-association for pro-Israeli, anti-Obama groups to question candidate Obama’s dubious associations; after all, Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Power, et al. were all on record as hostile to the Jewish state. Few likewise seemed to take note when a key Obama campaign foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in September 2009 suggested that the U.S. might, and perhaps should, shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq on their way to Iran: e.g., “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.” Then there was the nomination of Charles Freeman. And of course the present outreach to the two most terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle East, theocratic Iran and authoritarian Syria. Someone from Mars might conclude that the United States has spent far more effort in courting Ahmadinejad and Assad than Netayanhau.
Each of these steps — and there are others — in isolation can be contextualized, but in aggregate they paint a pretty clear picture that for this administration the benefits of supporting Israel are far outweighed by the downside.
So we are watching unfold a sort of Chicago-style Realpolitik, flavored with the traditional academic leftist disdain for the Jewish state. The subsequent result is not so much a cut-off of U.S. aid as a subtle shift in perception abroad: Israel’s multiple enemies now are almost giddy in sensing that America is not all that into protecting the Jewish state, intellectually or morally. And given the nature of the UN, given the power of oil, given endemic anti-Semitism, given the collapse of classical liberal thought in Europe (e.g., Britain was far more deferential to Libya in repatriating a supposedly “terminally ill” mass murderer to Tripoli than it is currently with Israel), and given the realpolitik amorality of Russian and Chinese foreign policy, the world as a whole can now far more easily step up its own natural pressure on Israel, at just the moment when it increasingly has no margin of error with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
Once the U.S. blinks, the floodgates open — that is the real lesson from the incremental, but unmistakable shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. Like radical shifts in thinking about health care, energy use, and amnesty, so too abroad Obama realizes that the difficult process of "change," in this case of becoming a neutral in the Middle East and deeming Israel's democracy unexceptional in the region, will require all sorts of dissimulation, denials, clarifications, and acrimony. But ultimately, the end of "solving" the Middle East crisis will be seen as well worth the now unpleasant and often tawdry means of doing it.
Israel: One of Many [Victor Davis Hanson]
Some strong supporters of both Obama and Israel are disappointed in the latest hysterical Biden-Clinton-Obama smack-down over the settlement issue. But why, I don't know — this is a logical, not an aberrant, development from President Obama.
Once it was thought to be unprincipled guilt-by-association for pro-Israeli, anti-Obama groups to question candidate Obama’s dubious associations; after all, Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Power, et al. were all on record as hostile to the Jewish state. Few likewise seemed to take note when a key Obama campaign foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in September 2009 suggested that the U.S. might, and perhaps should, shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq on their way to Iran: e.g., “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.” Then there was the nomination of Charles Freeman. And of course the present outreach to the two most terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle East, theocratic Iran and authoritarian Syria. Someone from Mars might conclude that the United States has spent far more effort in courting Ahmadinejad and Assad than Netayanhau.
Each of these steps — and there are others — in isolation can be contextualized, but in aggregate they paint a pretty clear picture that for this administration the benefits of supporting Israel are far outweighed by the downside.
So we are watching unfold a sort of Chicago-style Realpolitik, flavored with the traditional academic leftist disdain for the Jewish state. The subsequent result is not so much a cut-off of U.S. aid as a subtle shift in perception abroad: Israel’s multiple enemies now are almost giddy in sensing that America is not all that into protecting the Jewish state, intellectually or morally. And given the nature of the UN, given the power of oil, given endemic anti-Semitism, given the collapse of classical liberal thought in Europe (e.g., Britain was far more deferential to Libya in repatriating a supposedly “terminally ill” mass murderer to Tripoli than it is currently with Israel), and given the realpolitik amorality of Russian and Chinese foreign policy, the world as a whole can now far more easily step up its own natural pressure on Israel, at just the moment when it increasingly has no margin of error with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
Once the U.S. blinks, the floodgates open — that is the real lesson from the incremental, but unmistakable shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. Like radical shifts in thinking about health care, energy use, and amnesty, so too abroad Obama realizes that the difficult process of "change," in this case of becoming a neutral in the Middle East and deeming Israel's democracy unexceptional in the region, will require all sorts of dissimulation, denials, clarifications, and acrimony. But ultimately, the end of "solving" the Middle East crisis will be seen as well worth the now unpleasant and often tawdry means of doing it.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Netanyahu in the US "Jerusalem is NOT a Settlement - It's Our Capital !"
Go Bibi ....
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171594
Is Hillary Kidding? [Seth Leibsohn]
She told AIPAC yesterday: “When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict.” This after saying other dumb things about settlements in Jerusalem being intolerable. But what is she talking about regarding “Hamas-controlled municipalities glorifying violence”?
The square-naming and celebration of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi (who also killed an American woman) was a West Bank/Fatah affair, not a Gaza/Hamas affair. And, may we remind, it is the West Bank the administration wants to move Israelis out of in deference to those they see as moderates, i.e., Mahmoud Abbas and his (wait for it) Fatah organization.Either Hillary Clinton knew this and deliberately set up a straw man of Hamas (as if Hamas needs it), or she did not know this, in which case things are even worse than we thought. And they’re pretty bad.
And a big BOO for the Brits: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171666
Netanyahu to AIPAC: Stop Iran or Israel Will [Joel C. Rosenberg]
After the worst week in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington Monday and gave a powerful and effective speech at the AIPAC gala dinner at the Washington Convention Center, warning the world to stop Iran — or Israel will — and respectfully but directly challenging the Obama administration on Jerusalem and the peace process.
Netanyahu received scores of standing ovations from the 7,800 guests in attendance, the biggest event in the history of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). More than half of the members of the U.S. House and Senate were there, as were ambassadors from more than fifty countries and many top Israeli officials, including defense minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The longest and most sustained came when the prime minister firmly resisted the policy of President Obama, who seeks to divide Jerusalem and stop Israel from building “settlements” in East Jerusalem. “Jerusalem is not a settlement,” said Netanyahu. “It is our capital.”
Netanyahu’s strategy in rebuilding U.S.-Israel relations is now clear. Reduce tensions with the president and executive branch if at all possible, but focus on speaking directly to the American people and strengthening the truly pro-Israel end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Congress.
Most stunning line of the night: To the surprise of many at the dinner, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) conceded that when it comes to Iran, “Diplomacy has failed.” We all know this to be true, but it has not yet been said so clearly and publicly by such a high-ranking Democrat and close supporter of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Will Schumer’s analysis be taken up by fellow Democrats? This remains to be seen, but if it is, it could have dramatic implications for Washington’s next steps towards Iran. Schumer urged the administration to keep the military option open, but he stressed hitting Iran with crippling economic sanctions immediately. A bill he has co-sponsored to help cut off gas supplies to Iran (Iran imports 45 percent of its gasoline) passed the Senate on January 28th, he noted. It is now being reconciled with the House version. It should go to the president for signature soon, and he demanded the president move decisively with “immediate implementation.”
The most sobering speech of the night was that of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who spoke the truth more clearly and succinctly than anyone else when he noted that this could be the last annual AIPAC conference before Iran gets the Bomb. He said that while he hopes war won’t be necessary — he also supports crippling economic sanctions against Iran — the U.S. needs to urgently prepare for the possibility of launching massive airstrikes to stop Tehran from building and deploying nuclear weapons.
What Will Happen If the World Does Not Stop Iran?
The desire of Radical Islam to annihilate Israel was the first issue Netanyahu raised, and rightly so. “Iran’s rulers say, ‘Israel is a one bomb country,’” the prime minister noted. “The head of Hezbollah says, ‘If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.’”
Netanyahu called on the world “to act swiftly and decisively” to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but he made it clear that if the world does not stop Iran, Israel reserves the right to safeguard her people from another Holocaust.
“The greatest threat to any living organism or nation is not to recognize danger in time,” the prime minister said in his speech’s most sobering moment. “Seventy-five years ago, many leaders around the world put their heads in the sand. Untold millions died in the war that followed. Ultimately, two of history’s greatest leaders helped turn the tide. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill helped save the world. But they were too late to save six million of my own people. The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.”
What Have the Palestinian Leaders Done for Peace?
That said, given the brouhaha in the past week between the U.S. and Israel, Netanyahu’s central message naturally focused on his country’s deep and substantive commitment to making peace. He noted that his government has repeatedly called on the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table without preconditions, to no effect.
“From Day One, we called on the Palestinian Authority to begin peace negotiations without delay,” he said. “I make that same call today. President Abbas, come and negotiate peace. Leaders who truly want peace should sit down face-to-face.”
Netanyahu pointed out that his government has dismantled several hundred roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank to enable the easier flow of people, goods, and services, and that this has lead to dramatic economic growth in Judea and Samaria. He noted that his government announced last year “an unprecedented moratorium on new Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria.”
“This is what my government has done for peace,” said Netanyahu. “What has the Palestinian Authority done for peace?”
The answer, according to Netanyahu: The Palestinian Authority has “placed preconditions on peace talks”; they have “waged a relentless international campaign to undermine Israel’s legitimacy”; they have “promoted the notorious Goldstone report that falsely accuses Israel of war crimes”; they have “continued incitement against Israel — a few days ago, a public square near Ramallah was named after a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Palestinian Authority did nothing to prevent it.”
Why Does Israel Face a ‘Triple Standard’?
The prime minister thanked the United States for six decades of a strong and enduring relationship, based on shared values and common interests. He mentioned specific ways that the U.S. and Israel work together to advance freedom and fight fanaticism. But he also noted that while Israel has its imperfections and welcomes and appreciates sincere and honest criticism from its friends, “Israel should be judged by the same standards applied to all nations, and allegations against Israel must be grounded in fact.”
Going off text, he then asked why Israel faces a “triple standard” in the world. There is, he said, one standard for dictatorships, another for democracies, and a third for Israel.
A case in point, of course, is the U.N.’s pernicious and anti-Semitic Goldstone Commission Report which condemns Israel for committing so-called “war crimes” for defending her innocent civilians from 10,000-plus rocket attacks from Hamas terrorists in Gaza while for years the U.N. did nothing to stop those rocket attacks and barely holds Hamas to account for those attacks.
Outreach to Evangelicals
Finally, it should be noted that several years ago, to their credit, the leadership of AIPAC decided to make a conscious effort to reach out to pro-Israel evangelical Christian leaders and activists. I am so glad they did. Last night, there were 130 evangelical leaders present to show unconditional love and unwavering support to the Jewish people and the state of Israel. In the future, I hope more Christian leaders attend and build bridges to AIPAC and the Jewish community.
My wife and I met numerous religious and secular Jews last night (as we did last year) who are profoundly grateful for the support of evangelicals. One Orthodox Jewish woman told my wife and me, “You Christians are the best friends Israel has. You’re the only friends we really have.”
It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Washington blitz” will avert a coming train wreck between his government and the Obama administration over Iran, Jerusalem, and the peace process. But he is right to speak directly to the American people and to Israel’s friends in Congress. Indeed, he and his government should do much more, including a steady stream of major addresses to pro-Israel groups of Jews and Christians throughout the United States.
— Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times–best-selling author of seven novels and non-fiction books about Israel, including Epicenter and Inside the Revolution. He served as an aide to Mr. Netanyahu in 2000.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171594
Is Hillary Kidding? [Seth Leibsohn]
She told AIPAC yesterday: “When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict.” This after saying other dumb things about settlements in Jerusalem being intolerable. But what is she talking about regarding “Hamas-controlled municipalities glorifying violence”?
The square-naming and celebration of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi (who also killed an American woman) was a West Bank/Fatah affair, not a Gaza/Hamas affair. And, may we remind, it is the West Bank the administration wants to move Israelis out of in deference to those they see as moderates, i.e., Mahmoud Abbas and his (wait for it) Fatah organization.Either Hillary Clinton knew this and deliberately set up a straw man of Hamas (as if Hamas needs it), or she did not know this, in which case things are even worse than we thought. And they’re pretty bad.
And a big BOO for the Brits: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171666
Netanyahu to AIPAC: Stop Iran or Israel Will [Joel C. Rosenberg]
After the worst week in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington Monday and gave a powerful and effective speech at the AIPAC gala dinner at the Washington Convention Center, warning the world to stop Iran — or Israel will — and respectfully but directly challenging the Obama administration on Jerusalem and the peace process.
Netanyahu received scores of standing ovations from the 7,800 guests in attendance, the biggest event in the history of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). More than half of the members of the U.S. House and Senate were there, as were ambassadors from more than fifty countries and many top Israeli officials, including defense minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The longest and most sustained came when the prime minister firmly resisted the policy of President Obama, who seeks to divide Jerusalem and stop Israel from building “settlements” in East Jerusalem. “Jerusalem is not a settlement,” said Netanyahu. “It is our capital.”
Netanyahu’s strategy in rebuilding U.S.-Israel relations is now clear. Reduce tensions with the president and executive branch if at all possible, but focus on speaking directly to the American people and strengthening the truly pro-Israel end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Congress.
Most stunning line of the night: To the surprise of many at the dinner, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) conceded that when it comes to Iran, “Diplomacy has failed.” We all know this to be true, but it has not yet been said so clearly and publicly by such a high-ranking Democrat and close supporter of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Will Schumer’s analysis be taken up by fellow Democrats? This remains to be seen, but if it is, it could have dramatic implications for Washington’s next steps towards Iran. Schumer urged the administration to keep the military option open, but he stressed hitting Iran with crippling economic sanctions immediately. A bill he has co-sponsored to help cut off gas supplies to Iran (Iran imports 45 percent of its gasoline) passed the Senate on January 28th, he noted. It is now being reconciled with the House version. It should go to the president for signature soon, and he demanded the president move decisively with “immediate implementation.”
The most sobering speech of the night was that of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who spoke the truth more clearly and succinctly than anyone else when he noted that this could be the last annual AIPAC conference before Iran gets the Bomb. He said that while he hopes war won’t be necessary — he also supports crippling economic sanctions against Iran — the U.S. needs to urgently prepare for the possibility of launching massive airstrikes to stop Tehran from building and deploying nuclear weapons.
What Will Happen If the World Does Not Stop Iran?
The desire of Radical Islam to annihilate Israel was the first issue Netanyahu raised, and rightly so. “Iran’s rulers say, ‘Israel is a one bomb country,’” the prime minister noted. “The head of Hezbollah says, ‘If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.’”
Netanyahu called on the world “to act swiftly and decisively” to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but he made it clear that if the world does not stop Iran, Israel reserves the right to safeguard her people from another Holocaust.
“The greatest threat to any living organism or nation is not to recognize danger in time,” the prime minister said in his speech’s most sobering moment. “Seventy-five years ago, many leaders around the world put their heads in the sand. Untold millions died in the war that followed. Ultimately, two of history’s greatest leaders helped turn the tide. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill helped save the world. But they were too late to save six million of my own people. The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.”
What Have the Palestinian Leaders Done for Peace?
That said, given the brouhaha in the past week between the U.S. and Israel, Netanyahu’s central message naturally focused on his country’s deep and substantive commitment to making peace. He noted that his government has repeatedly called on the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table without preconditions, to no effect.
“From Day One, we called on the Palestinian Authority to begin peace negotiations without delay,” he said. “I make that same call today. President Abbas, come and negotiate peace. Leaders who truly want peace should sit down face-to-face.”
Netanyahu pointed out that his government has dismantled several hundred roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank to enable the easier flow of people, goods, and services, and that this has lead to dramatic economic growth in Judea and Samaria. He noted that his government announced last year “an unprecedented moratorium on new Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria.”
“This is what my government has done for peace,” said Netanyahu. “What has the Palestinian Authority done for peace?”
The answer, according to Netanyahu: The Palestinian Authority has “placed preconditions on peace talks”; they have “waged a relentless international campaign to undermine Israel’s legitimacy”; they have “promoted the notorious Goldstone report that falsely accuses Israel of war crimes”; they have “continued incitement against Israel — a few days ago, a public square near Ramallah was named after a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Palestinian Authority did nothing to prevent it.”
Why Does Israel Face a ‘Triple Standard’?
The prime minister thanked the United States for six decades of a strong and enduring relationship, based on shared values and common interests. He mentioned specific ways that the U.S. and Israel work together to advance freedom and fight fanaticism. But he also noted that while Israel has its imperfections and welcomes and appreciates sincere and honest criticism from its friends, “Israel should be judged by the same standards applied to all nations, and allegations against Israel must be grounded in fact.”
Going off text, he then asked why Israel faces a “triple standard” in the world. There is, he said, one standard for dictatorships, another for democracies, and a third for Israel.
A case in point, of course, is the U.N.’s pernicious and anti-Semitic Goldstone Commission Report which condemns Israel for committing so-called “war crimes” for defending her innocent civilians from 10,000-plus rocket attacks from Hamas terrorists in Gaza while for years the U.N. did nothing to stop those rocket attacks and barely holds Hamas to account for those attacks.
Outreach to Evangelicals
Finally, it should be noted that several years ago, to their credit, the leadership of AIPAC decided to make a conscious effort to reach out to pro-Israel evangelical Christian leaders and activists. I am so glad they did. Last night, there were 130 evangelical leaders present to show unconditional love and unwavering support to the Jewish people and the state of Israel. In the future, I hope more Christian leaders attend and build bridges to AIPAC and the Jewish community.
My wife and I met numerous religious and secular Jews last night (as we did last year) who are profoundly grateful for the support of evangelicals. One Orthodox Jewish woman told my wife and me, “You Christians are the best friends Israel has. You’re the only friends we really have.”
It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Washington blitz” will avert a coming train wreck between his government and the Obama administration over Iran, Jerusalem, and the peace process. But he is right to speak directly to the American people and to Israel’s friends in Congress. Indeed, he and his government should do much more, including a steady stream of major addresses to pro-Israel groups of Jews and Christians throughout the United States.
— Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times–best-selling author of seven novels and non-fiction books about Israel, including Epicenter and Inside the Revolution. He served as an aide to Mr. Netanyahu in 2000.
Monday, March 22, 2010
House Vote Post Mortem, Despite Defeat, "ObamaCare Is Not Inevitable"
A Campaign Begins Today [Mitt Romney]
America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends.
He promised better; we deserved better.He calls his accomplishment “historic” — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”
His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.
— Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and author of No Apology.
http://article.nationalreview.com/428841/obamacare-isnt-inevitable/the-editors
Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable
‘Nil desperandum” — never despair. That is a sentiment that conservatives need to take to heart now that Congress has narrowly passed a bill that simultaneously undermines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It takes some ingenuity to add to the costs, inefficiency, and dysfunctions that government has already bequeathed to our health-care system, but the Democrats have proven themselves up to the challenge. Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.
The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.
We are now being told that the campaign to repeal this legislation is over before it has even begun, that Americans will come to appreciate the benefits that a bountiful government is giving them, and that the growth of the welfare state can never be reversed. We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole — a gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize — has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.
But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years — if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.
It is possible, for example, that the results of the legislation will turn out to be unpleasant more quickly than most observers realize. The bill requires insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same as everyone else, and the only reason for people not to game the system — dropping their insurance until they get sick and the insurer has to take them — is because the law requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine. For many people, the fine will be a cheap price to avoid paying high premiums. The effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically — and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens, we can expect liberals to agitate for a single-payer system; but we can also expect the public to blame the Democrats whose health-care system it will now be. A less lopsidedly Democratic Congress is not going to respond to this chaos by enacting single payer or strengthening the fines.
For that matter, the lengthy legislation could turn out to have little time bombs, the nature of which cannot currently be guessed. Nothing about the process that produced the legislation, after all, suggests that it was put together with careful consideration. Conservatives will be able to capitalize on the discrediting of Obamacare, however it takes place, only if they campaign this fall on a pledge to replace this government-heavy system with true reform. Republicans running against Democrats who voted for this legislation will have the easiest task. But even Republicans running against Democrats who voted against it can advance the cause by challenging those Democrats either to advocate repeal and replacement themselves or to expose themselves as false opponents of Obamacare.
Nor have pro-lifers lost the war. Pro-lifers should campaign this fall on a pledge to make the Hyde amendment — the partial ban on government funding of abortion, which now applies to portions of federal spending and has to be renewed each year — a permanent feature of law that applies to all federal spending.
The Obama administration and most of liberaldom have pretended over the last year to favor both the principle in general and the Hyde amendment in particular. And the principle is popular. Their posturing, disingenuous though it was, has handed pro-lifers a winning issue.The Democrats have abused the system, ignoring both the Founders’ design and public opinion. The first step toward undoing that abuse is to make them pay a political price for it.
State AGs to File Suit Over Obamacare [Daniel Foster]
The attorneys general of at least eleven states will file lawsuits over the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care act, which is scheduled to be signed into law tomorrow:
"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.
"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
Virginia will also join in the fight:
Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.
"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
UPDATE: A statement from Washington attorney general Rob McKenna, who today announced he will join the suit:
"I'm concerned that the measure unconstitutionally requires all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance and places an extraordinary burden on our state budget by requiring Washington to expand its Medicaid eligibility standards in violation of our state's rights guaranteed under the 10th amendment."
"I believe this new federal health care measure unconstitutionally imposes new requirements on our state and on its citizens. This unprecedented federal mandate, requiring all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance, violates the Commerce Clause and the 10th amendment of the US Constitution."
UPDATE II: Ed Morrissey points to a 1994 CBO memorandum calling an individual mandate to provide insurance coverage "unprecedented."
A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.
Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society. For example, the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires restaurants to make their facilities accessible to persons with disabilities applies to people who own restaurants. The Federal Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the federal minimum wage. This prohibition pertains to individuals who employ others. Federal environmental statutes and regulations that require firms to meet pollution control standards and use specific technologies apply to companies that engage in specific lines of business or use particular production processes. Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law.
More articles:
@JayCost: Mankiw: Health bill adds to long-term fiscal problems. Tweet
John Bolton: Obama's global failure. The Daily Beast
Rich Lowry: Dem win is built on sand. New York Post
Bill Kristol: Repeal Weekly Standard
Sen. Jim DeMint: 'It must be repealed.' USA Today
Kimberley A. Strassel: Inside the Pelosi sausage factory. Wall Street Journal
Michael D. Shear: Obama plans blitz to boost public opinion of health-care effort. Washington Post
Editors: A landmark of liberal governance whose price will be very steep. Wall Street Journal
David E. Sanger: A big win for Obama, but at what cost? New York Times
Nile Gardiner: A dark day for freedom in America.
America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends.
He promised better; we deserved better.He calls his accomplishment “historic” — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”
His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.
— Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and author of No Apology.
http://article.nationalreview.com/428841/obamacare-isnt-inevitable/the-editors
Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable
‘Nil desperandum” — never despair. That is a sentiment that conservatives need to take to heart now that Congress has narrowly passed a bill that simultaneously undermines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It takes some ingenuity to add to the costs, inefficiency, and dysfunctions that government has already bequeathed to our health-care system, but the Democrats have proven themselves up to the challenge. Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.
The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.
We are now being told that the campaign to repeal this legislation is over before it has even begun, that Americans will come to appreciate the benefits that a bountiful government is giving them, and that the growth of the welfare state can never be reversed. We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole — a gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize — has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.
But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years — if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.
It is possible, for example, that the results of the legislation will turn out to be unpleasant more quickly than most observers realize. The bill requires insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same as everyone else, and the only reason for people not to game the system — dropping their insurance until they get sick and the insurer has to take them — is because the law requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine. For many people, the fine will be a cheap price to avoid paying high premiums. The effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically — and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens, we can expect liberals to agitate for a single-payer system; but we can also expect the public to blame the Democrats whose health-care system it will now be. A less lopsidedly Democratic Congress is not going to respond to this chaos by enacting single payer or strengthening the fines.
For that matter, the lengthy legislation could turn out to have little time bombs, the nature of which cannot currently be guessed. Nothing about the process that produced the legislation, after all, suggests that it was put together with careful consideration. Conservatives will be able to capitalize on the discrediting of Obamacare, however it takes place, only if they campaign this fall on a pledge to replace this government-heavy system with true reform. Republicans running against Democrats who voted for this legislation will have the easiest task. But even Republicans running against Democrats who voted against it can advance the cause by challenging those Democrats either to advocate repeal and replacement themselves or to expose themselves as false opponents of Obamacare.
Nor have pro-lifers lost the war. Pro-lifers should campaign this fall on a pledge to make the Hyde amendment — the partial ban on government funding of abortion, which now applies to portions of federal spending and has to be renewed each year — a permanent feature of law that applies to all federal spending.
The Obama administration and most of liberaldom have pretended over the last year to favor both the principle in general and the Hyde amendment in particular. And the principle is popular. Their posturing, disingenuous though it was, has handed pro-lifers a winning issue.The Democrats have abused the system, ignoring both the Founders’ design and public opinion. The first step toward undoing that abuse is to make them pay a political price for it.
State AGs to File Suit Over Obamacare [Daniel Foster]
The attorneys general of at least eleven states will file lawsuits over the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care act, which is scheduled to be signed into law tomorrow:
"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.
"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
Virginia will also join in the fight:
Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.
"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
UPDATE: A statement from Washington attorney general Rob McKenna, who today announced he will join the suit:
"I'm concerned that the measure unconstitutionally requires all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance and places an extraordinary burden on our state budget by requiring Washington to expand its Medicaid eligibility standards in violation of our state's rights guaranteed under the 10th amendment."
"I believe this new federal health care measure unconstitutionally imposes new requirements on our state and on its citizens. This unprecedented federal mandate, requiring all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance, violates the Commerce Clause and the 10th amendment of the US Constitution."
UPDATE II: Ed Morrissey points to a 1994 CBO memorandum calling an individual mandate to provide insurance coverage "unprecedented."
A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.
Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society. For example, the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires restaurants to make their facilities accessible to persons with disabilities applies to people who own restaurants. The Federal Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the federal minimum wage. This prohibition pertains to individuals who employ others. Federal environmental statutes and regulations that require firms to meet pollution control standards and use specific technologies apply to companies that engage in specific lines of business or use particular production processes. Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law.
More articles:
@JayCost: Mankiw: Health bill adds to long-term fiscal problems. Tweet
John Bolton: Obama's global failure. The Daily Beast
Rich Lowry: Dem win is built on sand. New York Post
Bill Kristol: Repeal Weekly Standard
Sen. Jim DeMint: 'It must be repealed.' USA Today
Kimberley A. Strassel: Inside the Pelosi sausage factory. Wall Street Journal
Michael D. Shear: Obama plans blitz to boost public opinion of health-care effort. Washington Post
Editors: A landmark of liberal governance whose price will be very steep. Wall Street Journal
David E. Sanger: A big win for Obama, but at what cost? New York Times
Nile Gardiner: A dark day for freedom in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
