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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
