Internet Scofflaw

Power Line catches the latest Obama gaffe:

Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant. Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.” . . .

The stunned silence with which the crowd greets this howler suggests that most Americans have a more practical understanding of energy consumption than Obama.

Just for fun, I did the math. . . [Calculations omitted.] So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”

Obama is a curious case. He gives the impression of being an intelligent guy, but through his unscripted comments we have learned that he knows little about history, science or mathematics. He also seems rather shockingly short on common sense, as this most recent gaffe illustrates.

It’s no wonder why Obama cut off debating Hillary Clinton when people started paying attention, and is now dodging debates with McCain. Will the media be able to protect him until Election Day? Time will tell.

UPDATE (8/6): ABC takes Obama’s claim more seriously, but still finds it wanting. They’re bending over backward to be charitable to Obama, taking into account only the continental shelf (not Alaska) and assuming, implicitly, that we could only double oil production there. Even with those assumptions, they still come up with a full order of magnitude between drilling and tire inflation. (Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE (8/7): Time tries to cover for Obama.  Hilarity ensues.  (Via Instapundit.)

His successor will have some mighty small shoes to fill.

The AP reports:

Democrat Barack Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

Stumping in an economically challenged battleground state, Obama argued Wednesday that President Bush and McCain will resort to scare tactics to maintain their hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.

“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

(ASIDE: Setting the race card aside, “other people” might be more apt than “other presidents”, since Obama is not a president, and neither were Hamilton or Franklin.)

(Via Instapundit.)

The left is getting on the bandwagon, as witnessed by this Josh Marshall post, where he argues that John McCain’s “Celebrity” ad’s allusions to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are presumptively racist, and that criticizing Obama for pretending he’s the president when he’s not is also presumptively racist:

I note with interest today, John McCain’s new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women. . . Presumably, a la Harold Ford 2006, this will be one of those strategies that will be a matter of deep dispute during the campaign and later treated as transparent and obvious once the campaign is concluded.

But what I’m most interested in today is the new meme the McCain campaign has been pushing for the last few weeks that Obama is presumptuous, arrogant and well … just a bit uppity.

(Via the Corner.)

When the left is willing to see racism in cases like this, where there is not a hint of it, the game plan is clear. Any criticism of Obama will be castigated as racism. There’s no reason it will end with the election either. If Obama is elected president, for the next eight-to-ten years anyone who opposes to his radical program will be charged with racism. Naturally, many will still oppose him — particularly when his policies bring disaster — and the ensuing racism charges will leave America much more racially divided than today.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign tries to backpedal:

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the senator was not referring to race.

“What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs said. “There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.”

Obama often makes references to his distinctions as a candidate, such as saying there are doubts among some voters because he has “a funny name.” At times he refers to his race as well, saying he looks different from any previous candidate but then adding that the differences are not just about race. Addressing supporters Wednesday night at a fundraiser in Springfield, Mo., he said, “It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama.”

UPDATE: In case anyone takes this seriously, this was Obama last month:

The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

This is the same riff, almost point for point: Republicans have no ideas, they’ll try to scare you, funny name, black. If it weren’t obvious from his actual remarks that he was referring to race, it is certainly obvious from the way he’s phrased those same remarks in the past.

(Via the Corner.)

UPDATE: The New York Times agrees that likening Obama to Britney Spears is a racial attack. Also, it’s “contemptible” to point out that Obama is playing the race card. (Via Hot Air.)

UPDATE: The Obama campaign finally concedes the obvious.

UPDATE: The McCain campaign fires back at the NYT.  (Via Hot Air.)

You might accidentally discover a non-existent religious denomination.  (Via the Corner.)

AP reports.  (Via Hot Air.)

(Previous post.)

Oh geez:

Palestinian officials from the Gaza Strip have distributed a set of carefully-staged photographs they say are evidence that the smuggling tunnels running under the Gaza-Egypt border are for milk and other essential goods, not weapons.

The photographs show masked Palestinian militants lifting jugs of milk and sacks of baby food from the entrance to one of the tunnels on the Gaza side of the border.

Israel insists that the tunnels, of which intelligence estimates indicate there are hundreds, are used to import small arms and advanced weapons like heavy mortar shells, anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft missiles. The tunnels are also said to be the conduit via which the Palestinians receive the material used to build their Kassam rockets.

(Via Power Line.)

How to steal a state:

This November, voters in Michigan may be asked to consider a lengthy ballot initiative to revise the state’s constitution. Proposed by a group called Reform Michigan Government Now, the initiative’s ostensible purpose is to restore efficiency and accountability to Michigan government. A look at the fine print, and a recently disclosed strategy document, reveals something altogether different: A stealth campaign to restructure all three branches of government, including the state judiciary, for partisan advantage. . .

Buried in the text of the 19,500-word ballot initiative are provisions designed to shift partisan control of every branch of Michigan government, including the state courts. Among other things, the initiative would eliminate two seats on the Michigan supreme court and several more seats on the state Courts of Appeals. The constitutional revisions would also cut the size of the Michigan legislature, rewrite the standards for legislative districting, and adopt controversial election reforms, such as no-excuse absentee voting, which has the potential to increase voter fraud within the state. In all, the initiative would rewrite over two dozen provisions in the Michigan state constitution.

Proponents proclaim the ballot initiative is a bipartisan effort to improve Michigan government, but a recently disclosed strategy document revealed a more partisan agenda. According to a PowerPoint presentation drafted by political consultants working for initiative proponents, the ballot initiative’s primary virtue is its potential to hand control of Michigan government over to the Democratic party for at least a decade.

The presentation was delivered to a union leadership conference this past spring. A graduate student intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan-based free-market think tank, discovered the slides on the United Auto Workers Region 1-C website. This discovery revealed a breathtakingly cynical stealth campaign to rewrite the state constitution. As the title slide explains, the plan’s true purpose is “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats.”

Reform Michigan Government Now presents itself as a bipartisan good government initiative that seeks to make government more accountable and efficient. Yet according to the presentation, the real problem facing Michigan is not bloated or inefficient government, but the Democratic Party’s failure to control the state legislature and governor’s office.

In order to ensure pro-Democrat redistricting in 2011-12, the presentation explains, the Democratic party will need to control all three branches of government: the governor’s office, state legislature and the judiciary. According to one slide, control of the supreme court is the “most important,” as the court “can overturn redistricting” done by the political branches. It seems judicial oversight is a particular concern because the traditional state redistricting criteria, such as keeping communities together, are “systematically biased against Democrats.”

Most distressing, and revealing, is how the Reform Michigan Government Now plan “reforms” the state judiciary. Specifically, the ballot initiative selectively alters the composition of Michigan state courts at every level — trial courts, appellate courts, and the supreme court — each by a different standard. The only unifying theme is that each reform will increase the proportion of Democrat-appointed judges.

As in many states, Michigan’s supreme court justices are subject to re-election, giving court critics ample opportunity to seek change through traditional political means. But, the presentation explains, defeating incumbent justices would be costly and difficult. So, rather than promote candidates for the Court who would rubber stamp a pro-Democrat redistricting effort, and seek to have them elected fair and square, initiative proponents want to seize partisan control of the Court in one fell swoop by eliminating two seats and removing two Republican appointees from the Court. This is no accident, as the presentation makes clear when describing the relevant plank in the proposal: “Reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to five; two GOP justices eliminated” (emphasis added).

(Via the Volokh Conspiracy.)

The LA city council is displeased with the verdict of the market:

In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that’s a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.

The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.

“Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods,” City Councilman Bernard Parks said. . .

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who proposed the measure and represents much of South Los Angeles in her 9th District, says that’s no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order.

A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South L.A. restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles.

If the moratorium is passed, Perry wants to lure restaurateurs and grocery retailers to area.

Evidently, “healthy food options” have generally found South LA (formerly known as South Central LA) an unprofitable place to locate, otherwise there would be more of them there already. The LA city council did not explain how banning profitable businesses would make the area more attractive to unprofitable ones.

The latest Gallup tracking poll has Obama leading by 8.  The latest Gallup/USA Today poll has McCain leading by 4.  Hmm.

It’s no secret that the EU’s preferred strategy for dealing with the Irish no vote on Lisbon is for Ireland to vote again, and get it right this time. That’s now looking unlikely:

Almost three-quarters of Irish voters are opposed to a second referendum on the EU’s new reform treaty, a new poll published yesterday (27 July) revealed, dealing a blow to EU leaders’ hopes of rescuing the text.

71% said they do not want to vote again on the reform treaty, while only 24% are in favour, according to the Red C poll conducted for the eurosceptic Open Europe think tank.

Of those who voiced an opinion, 62% said they would vote no in a second referendum, while 34% said they would back the treaty, which aims to overhaul the Union’s institutions and procedures.

(Via Instapundit.)

Buchanan has a new book, the central thesis of which is (I gather) that WW2 need not have happened, and was only the result of the Allies’ unwise security guarantee to Poland.  Buchanan argues that absent that guarantee, Poland would have been willing to negotiate with Germany over Danzig and war could have been averted.

Sheer idiocy.  One does not have to be a military historian to recognize that Danzig was merely the latest in a series of increasingly unacceptable German territorial demands, and if granted, the demands would only have continued until Hitler ruled the entire world.

Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens, who are military historians, take on Buchanan and the WW2 revisionists on NRO TV’s Uncommon Knowledge.

(Via the Corner.)  (Previous post.)

Jim Geraghty has uncovered the truth behind Obama’s cancelled visit to the Landstuhl Medical Center. (Obama has confirmed the principal facts himself.) To be fair, the truth looks a little better than the story did before. I think Obama still looks bad, but you can decide for yourself.

Apparently it was not a matter of bringing reporters and photographer to Landstuhl, but one specific campaign aide, Jonathan Gration, a retired general. General Gration, being campaign staff, not legislative or personal staff, was not permitted to attend. Gration “got torqued” (generals aren’t used to being told no) and shortly thereafter the visit was cancelled. The campaign has not revealed whether they considered the possibility of going without Gration.

The original story put out by the campaign, that the visit was cancelled because they didn’t want it to appear political, was misleading at best. If there is any truth to that story at all, their sudden concern about appearing political arose only after Gration got angry that he wouldn’t be able to go.

A second story put out later by the campaign was an outright lie. Gration himself, who was certainly in command of the facts, put out the false statement that the visit was scuttled by the Pentagon.

Will General Gration keep his job after causing this debacle and then lying about it to the press? We’ll see.

UPDATE: The NYT, of all papers, has started to wonder about this.  (Via Hot Air.)

Here’s a shocker: Obama Says Overseas Trip Confirmed Foreign Policy Views.

It covers the John Edwards sex scandal. I ignored this story as long as it was only in the National Enquirer, but now the Times has confirmed a key element of the story:

Every supermarket shopper knows that the preternaturally youthful former senator for North Carolina may have fathered a love child with a film-maker while Elizabeth, his saintly wife, is dying of cancer. There are sensational new details on the National Enquirer website, although most of the media have done their best to ignore them.

The tabloid magazine cornered Edwards, 55, leaving a Los Angeles hotel where Rielle Hunter, his alleged mistress, and her baby were staying, at 2.40am last Tuesday. He ran down a hallway and dived into the men’s bathroom. A hotel security guard confirmed the encounter. “His face just went totally white,” the guard said.

The most interesting aspect of this has been the US media’s treatment of the story:

Tony Pierce, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued an edict to the paper’s own bloggers to stay off the subject. “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations,” he wrote.

Mickey Kaus, a blogger for Slate magazine, leaked the memo. He noted: “This was a sensational scandal that the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again.”

The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story, although it recently ran thousands of words on a relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist, which appeared to be based more on innuendo than fact.

Byron York, a conservative journalist, finally broke the silence in The Hill, a reputable, non-partisan congressional newspaper. “The media looks down on the National Enquirer but you look at the Edwards story and say, ‘Wow! There appears to be a lot of knowledge there’. It is darned fishy,” York said.

Now that the London Times has picked up the story, the LA Times will need a new excuse.

As far as Edwards is concerned, it’s been perfectly obvious for years that he is as phony as a $3 bill. For example:

Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn’t pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

A look at the tactics used to keep race-neutrality and other voter initiatives off the ballot:

“The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place,” says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). “That’s the only way we’re going to win.” . . .

The police had to be called when BAMN blocked the entrance of a Phoenix office where circulators had to deliver their petitions. “BAMN’s tactics,” she concluded, “resemble those used by anti-abortion activists to prevent women from entering abortion clinics.”

But BAMN proudly posts videos on its success in scaring away voters, or convincing circulators to hand over their petitions to its shock troops. “If you give me your signatures, we’ll leave you alone,” says a BAMN volunteer on one tape to someone who’s earning money by circulating several different petitions. . .

The war against citizen initiatives has other fronts. This year in Michigan, taxpayer groups tried to recall House Speaker Andy Dillon after he pushed through a 12% increase in the state income tax. But petitioners collecting the necessary 8,724 signatures in his suburban Detroit district were set upon. In Redford, police union members held a rally backing Mr. Dillon and would alert blockers to the location of recall petitioners. Outsiders would then surround petitioners and potential signers, using threatening language.

Mr. Dillon denied organizing such activity. Then it was revealed two of the harassers were state employees working directly for him. Another “voter educator” hired by the state’s Democratic Party had been convicted of armed robbery. After 2,000 signatures were thrown out on technical grounds, the recall effort fell 700 signatures short.

(Via Instapundit.)

This is weird:

One interesting detail from Le Figaro: The Obama-Sarkozy meeting will be conducted with a minimum of fuss, to mark it off clearly from the trappings of a presidential visit.

“Nicolas Sarkozy’s advisers received only one demand from the team of the Democratic candidate: no American flag for the press conference, because it’s a candidate being received, not the president of the United States.”

For a candidate with his own presidential seal, who is already planning his presidential transition, and who is holding a joint press conference with a foreign head of state, his sudden reticence to pretend to be president is a little odd.  But that’s nothing compared to his strange belief — if this is being reported accurately — that the American flag is for the president only.

(Via Media Blog.)

(Update appended.)

When I read that Obama had cancelled his planned visit to injured troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center because he thought it would be “inappropriate”, I was inclined to give him a break. In fact, I agreed that it would have been inappropriate to use our wounded troops as political props.

That was before this scoop from NBC News, who learned that preparations for Obama’s visit were already being made and that the visit was cancelled after the campaign learned they would not be able to bring the media:

A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but “for some reason the visit was called off.”

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”

The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”

(Via Hot Air.)

This casts the cancellation in a rather different light. Rather than an exhibition of good taste and judgement, it’s just the opposite. It would seem that Obama cancelled, not because he saw it would be inappropriate to use wounded troops as political props, but because the military wouldn’t let him do so.

I’m sure Obama’s defenders will say this is merely coincidence; that his last-minute change of heart about visiting Landstuhl during a campaign trip had nothing to do with his being told he couldn’t make it a campaign stop. There’s to way to know for sure (given what we know now, anyway), but I have to say that if this was an instance of prudence and good taste, it was entirely out-of-character for this trip.

UPDATE: The facts are now known, and Obama looks a little bit better than this.  Apparently it was a matter of certain campaign staff, not the media, that aborted the visit.

The Washington Post gets it:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama’s own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support his strategy. . .

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.” . . .

Yet Mr. Obama’s account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is “the central front” for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama’s antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

(Via Power Line.)

Over the past week, while Obama made his ballyhooed overseas trip, the proportion of voters saying he was too inexperienced to be president rose to 45%, according to Rasmussen.  Less than a third thought he would learn anything from his “fact-finding” mission.

(Via Instapundit.)

USA Today: “Why can’t Obama admit the obvious? The surge worked.”  (Via Instapundit.)

With over three months to go before the election, Marc Ambinder reports that Barack Obama has begun work on his presidential transition.  (Via Instapundit.)

(Related item.)

Lanny Davis, former White House Counsel, writes:

. . . And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.

It did allow the Shi’ite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shiite extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and in the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.

This willingness by the Shi’ite–dominated Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi’ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi’ites to turn against the Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban–like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments.

I think there are a lot of anti-war Democrats who, like me, are impressed by these facts and who now see a moral obligation, after all the carnage and destruction wrought by our military intervention, not just to pick up and leave without looking over our shoulders.

Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights.

Surely we owe the Maliki government and the Shiiite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shiite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation — and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.

(Via Instapundit.)

On the anniversary of Obama’s meet-without-preconditions statement at the Democratic debate, Byron York notices that Obama is still rewriting his statement.

A good catch by Power Line:

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.

(Emphasis mine.)  Obama is not a member of the Banking Committee.

What’s the deal with this?  Is Obama confused about what committees he serves on?  (After all, he doesn’t attend many committee meetings.)  If not, why tell such an obvious lie?  Is it because he knows the media won’t call him on it?  So far, he’s right.

UPDATE: A related item: media contributions favor Democrats by at least 10:1.  Depending on how you count, as much as 100:1.  (Via Instapundit.)

Because to do otherwise would mean admitting he was wrong:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

A: No, because, keep in mind that…

Q: You wouldn’t?

A: Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

Commentary has his theory on what was going on with the Der Spiegel interview. (Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Boot follows up.  (Via the Corner.)

The Wall Street Journal reports:

For the Pritzker family of Chicago, the 2001 collapse of subprime-mortgage lender Superior Bank was an embarrassing failure in a corner of their giant business empire.

Billionaire Penny Pritzker helped run Hinsdale, Ill.-based Superior, overseeing her family’s 50% ownership stake. She now serves as Barack Obama’s national campaign-finance chairwoman, which means her banking past could prove to be an embarrassment to her — and perhaps to the campaign.

Superior was seized in 2001 and later closed by federal regulators. Government investigators and consumer advocates have contended that Superior engaged in unsound financial activities and predatory lending practices. Ms. Pritzker, a longtime friend and supporter of Sen. Obama, served for a time as Superior’s chairman, and later sat on the board of its holding company.

Sen. Obama has long criticized predatory subprime mortgage lenders and urged strong actions against them. . .

The Obama campaign recently faced a controversy related to mortgage lending. A member of Sen. Obama’s vice-presidential selection committee resigned after a Wall Street Journal story said he received favorable treatment on personal loans from Countrywide Financial Corp., a major subprime lender. . .

Superior’s failure could still cost the federal deposit insurance fund tens of millions of dollars or more. And hundreds of people whose deposits exceeded federal insurance limits, such as Ms. Sweet, are still out millions of dollars, which will be reduced some by future Pritzker settlement payments.

(Emphasis mine.)  (Via Instapundit.)

It’s starting to get hard to keep track of all of Obama’s corrupt friends.

That’s how long Obama says he’ll be in office.  (Via Instapundit.)

My take on Obama’s civilian national security force was it sounded like the American Protective League, part of Woodrow Wilson’s experiment in American fascism. But Classical Values has a more positive interpretation. (Via Instapundit.)

President Bush’s domestic program: a picture is worth a thousand words.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has written a response to the NYT’s ombudsman’s column arguing that they were right to reveal the identity of a CIA interrogator.

Charles Krauthammer is not a believer in our new messiah:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone. . .

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

Dean Barnett and Ed Morrissey are crowing over the latest Obama gaffe:

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

(Emphasis mine.)

Come on, let’s be fair.  This would make perfect sense (or at least be fully defensible) if he had said “bombs” rather than “bomb”.  That makes this most likely a verbal flub, not evidence of Obama’s appalling ignorance.  It’s hardly worth our attention, particular with such more compelling material available.

That said, it should go without saying that if George W Bush had made the same remark, the left would be crowing about the latest proof of his stupidity.

The Onion reports:

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of Wright v. Dreckman, which calls into question professional baseball player David Wright’s 2005 check swing against the San Diego Padres and whether or not the resulting strike call should be upheld. . .

The road to the Supreme Court for Wright v. Dreckman has been lengthy, convoluted, and filled with more than its share of tumult. After the 2005 Shea ruling, the case was appealed to the U.S. District Court of the state of New York, where the decision was reversed in favor of Wright. However, when it was revealed that the presiding judge was a lifelong Mets fan, the decision was thrown out and the case was again argued in front of the New York State Court of Appeals. That court, citing the 1994 case Bonds v. Davidson, sided with Dreckman.

According to attorney Reiss, however, the decision in Bonds v. Davidson was inapplicable. Though the court upheld the original ruling on the field, Reiss was quick to note that Bonds was left-handed, and thus the case set legal precedent with third-base umpires, not first-base umpires. Reiss believed Wright being right-handed constituted a legitimate enough reason to file a writ of certiorari, or “cert petition,” an order for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court. . .

This is far from the first instance in which the Supreme Court has been called upon to decide matters of the national pastime. In the 1903 case of Wagner v. The Chicago White Sox, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the defendant that “a base-ball hit far and high, only to bounce fairly onto the field-of-play, and then spring forth into the seats of the ‘bleachers’ should earn the bats-man no more and no fewer than two bases, and not an out.” A landmark 1976 ruling established the infield fly rule. And more recently, a 2006 decision in the case of Rodriguez v. The Fans of New York cemented the legal precedent established in the 1940 case of Williams v. The Fans of Boston, which made it clear that baseball fans are free to boo, no matter how nonsensical it may seem, players on their home team.

Ha ha. As if the judicial system would ever inject itself in a rule-making capacity into private affairs. How silly.

(UPDATE: I’m reminded of this non-Onion article.)

Also at the Onion: ‘Time’ Publishes Definitive Obama Puff Piece. (Via the Corner.)

Under DC’s new gun law, people who already had guns despite the now-overturned gun ban, can register them (maybe). But, law-abiding citizens who previously abided by the ban still cannot get a gun. Why? There are no gun shops in DC, and there won’t be, because zoning regulations prohibit them. You can, however, buy a gun outside DC and ship it to a federally licensed firearms dealer. That’s where things get interesting:

As WTOP first reported, there are only six federally licensed firearm dealers in the District, and only one of them is willing to handle the transfer of handguns. Until gun shops open in the District, residents will have to buy their handguns out of state and have them shipped to a licensed dealer in the District. Charles Sykes is that licensed dealer, and he’s told WTOP he’s willing to handle the transfer of handguns for residents, just has he has for security companies since 1994. “On a low key basis,” Sykes says. “By appointment.”

But Sykes has a problem. He lost his lease and has had to relocate, and the District has refused to issue him the necessary permit to open his new office. Sykes told the Washington CityPaper he thinks the city is withholding his Certificate of Occupancy for “political” reasons. He may be right.

A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which issues the permit, could not say what the status of his application is, or why it was being withheld in time for this report.

DC does not appear to be acting in good faith.

Here’s what I find amazing, though. Violators of the old law can now have legal weapons (under the amnesty), but those who obeyed the law cannot. DC has actually managed to arrange matters so that a classic problem with gun bans (law-violators are armed, but law-abiders are not) is preserved even when the gun ban is lifted. Way to go, DC!

(Via Outside the Beltway, via Instapundit.)

The no-oil-development caucus in Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi, has settled on a strategy to defuse calls for more oil drilling.  It’s a political strategy, in that it doesn’t do anything about the underlying problem of insufficient supplies of energy, but they hope it will deal with the increasingly popular calls to open up ANWR or the continental shelf to oil exploration.  The strategy is to shift blame to oil companies that have signed leases for oil exploration in other areas but have not yet exploited them.

Oil companies are in the business of developing oil, so if they are not developing areas in which they have the right to do so, it’s obvious that those areas must be unattractive for some reason.  It makes no sense to suppose, as Pelosi would have us, that the oil companies are spitefully refusing to develop profitable oil reserves.

So why are those existing leases unattractive?  Power Line has a post explaining why.  The area currently open for development is called NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska).  The other area in question is ANWR-1002, a tiny piece of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.  Both areas were set aside for future production of oil, but ANWR-1002 requires Congressional authorization to begin, which as we all well know has not been granted.

Two main obstacles have impeded the development of NPR-A:  First, the ubiquitous environmental litgation.  Second, the lack of any infrastructure to move oil out of the area.  NPR-A is enormous, and even at its closest point is far from the Alaskan pipeline.  Furthermore, no permit has been granted even to begin extending the pipeline to NPR-A.  (If Pelosi were serious about NPR-A, her legislation would authorize immediate commencement of an extension.  Even then it would take years to build.)

ANWR-1002, on the other hand, is small and not far from the existing pipeline.  Moreover, it has the same reserves as NPR-A, despite being one-tenth the size.  Thus, the density of oil reserves is an order of magnitude greater.  So it’s not hard to see why ANWR-1002 is so much more attractive: much denser (and therefore cost-effective) oil deposits and a practical means to move that oil to market.

The irony of Pelosi’s plan is that if we focused on NPR-A, as she feigns to wish, the environmental damage would be much greater than if we developed the much smaller and readily reachable area of ANWR-1002.  Since increased environmental damage is clearly not Pelosi’s aim, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that she supports NPR-A development precisely because she knows it won’t happen.

They write:

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. . . After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq. . .

“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest.

(Emphasis mine.)  They also note than Obama was dead wrong on the surge.

(Via the Corner.)

In the war between residents and commuters, Megan McArdle sides with her own:

People who commute into DC have put the city into their mental “Work” basket. Wherever they are in the city, they tend to act as if they are in some commercially zoned suburban office park, where children and pedestrians basically don’t belong. . . Bicycles and pedestrians slowing down their commute seem like unreasonable intrusions.

For residents of DC, the city is the mental equivalent of your suburban cul–de-sac. . . When we see commuters behaving as if they were on a highway, rather than in a residential area, we get, well, a tad miffed. And as you’ve probably guessed, I think we have the right of it.

I’ll be the first to agree that people should drive safely in residential areas (or anywhere else). But I have noticed that people’s claims of high principle in battles of us versus them never last very long after they switch categories. I’ve watched people curse pedestrians and then, without a hint of irony, turn around and curse motorists moments after getting out of their car. Heck, I’ve even caught myself doing it. Dividing the world into residents and commuters sounds like a good innovation to avoid cognitive dissonance, since you don’t change categories nearly as often.

Then McArdle goes on to say something very interesting:

Commuters into DC do not even have the excuse for their sense of entitlement that commuters into New York or San Francisco have: that without them, the businesses wouldn’t be there, and the economy of the city would drastically suffer. The business of DC is mostly various non-profit, or very thinly profitable, entities that do not pay significant taxes–only a quarter of DC’s revenue comes from sales and business taxes, and of course a lot of those are paid by the residents. The business that does bring substantial revenue into DC, tourism, is not going anywhere, because they’re not going to move the Washington Monument to Silver Spring.

Nor, as some of the commuters have alleged, do their gas taxes pay for the roads. Federal highway funds provide about 20% of the capital budget for DC streets; the rest comes from those of us who live and pay taxes in the city.

As a former Pittsburgher, now living in the suburbs, this is a very familiar argument. The City of Pittsburgh is bankrupt. This is mainly due to years and years of appallingly bad financial choices that show no sign of ending. But to those who approved those budgets and to their supporters, another culprit is needed. That culprit, of course, is the commuters.

The commuters are responsible, we are told, because most of the major employers in Pittsburgh are non-profit, and therefore do not pay taxes. (ASIDE: This isn’t actually true; the non-profits do pay taxes, but they’re called “voluntary contributions”. “Shakedowns” would be more appropriate.) Consequently, all those commuters working at non-profits aren’t paying for the services they consume.

This leads to an obvious solution: annex the suburbs, or at least get the county or the state to permit them to levy taxes on them. It’s the time-honored solution for polities with financial difficulties: conquer your neighbor and plunder them. The only problem is we don’t want to be conquered.

The District of Columbia is a bit different, because the plundering is already under way. McArdle helpfully linked the DC budget (pdf), wherein I was able to find the following statistic: of the $254 million in DC revenues, $146 million is “subsidy from primary government.” That, I assume, is us.

Moreover, looking at everything in terms of taxes misses the point. The lifeblood of a city is not tax revenues, the lifeblood is the commerce and other activity of the people there, residents and commuters alike. Without the hospitals and universities, Pittsburgh would cease to exist. And without the Federal government, DC would still be a swamp.

So perhaps us versus them isn’t the right way to look at it after all. Maybe we should just say that people should drive safely in residential areas.

Some people are upset that the Colombian hostage rescue operation may have employed a red cross emblem as part of its ruse:

Colombian military intelligence used the Red Cross emblem in a rescue operation in which leftist guerrillas were duped into handing over 15 hostages, according to unpublished photographs and video viewed by CNN.

Photographs of the Colombian military intelligence-led team that spearheaded the rescue, shown to CNN by a confidential military source, show one man wearing a bib with the Red Cross symbol. The military source said the three photos were taken moments before the mission took off to persuade the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia rebels to release the hostages to a supposed international aid group for transport to another rebel area.

Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a “war crime” under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future, according to international legal expert Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association. . .

The unpublished video and photos of the mission, hailed internationally as a daring success, were shown to CNN by a military source looking to sell the material. CNN declined to buy the material at the price being asked; it was therefore unable to verify the authenticity of the images.

(Via LGF.)

Geez. If we suppose this even happened at all, the Colombians weren’t using the emblem to launch attacks or transport weapons, they were rescuing hostages held by terrorists for years. If you think this was wrong, much less a war crime, that says more about you than it does about Colombia. Indeed, it strikes me that one’s opinion about this could be an excellent shibboleth to determine one’s general stance regarding terrorism.

Also, before one sheds any tears for the now-terribly-endangered humanitarian workers, it might be worthwhile to read Mary Anastasia O’Grady’s WSJ piece on the NGO-FARC axis.

The McCain campaign has a response piece out rebutting Obama’s brazen attempt to rewrite the history of his statements on Iraq, and the Surge in particular.  (Via the Tank.)

For what it’s worth, the response leaves out one important point.  Obama says that Iraq has “not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.”  This was stupid last September, when Democrats seized on the “benchmarks” to deny the achievements of the Surge.  After all, for our purposes, those political goals were merely means to an end (i.e., to bring stability to Iraq) that was being met without them.  Now, however, it’s doubly stupid, since now nearly all the (largely forgotten) benchmarks have seen satisfactory progress.

The NYT reports. (Via No Silence Here, via Instapundit.)

The Economist looks at a few cautionary tales of abuse of asset forfeiture.  It’s always struck me that creating financial incentives for law enforcement would cause dangerous conflicts of interest.

Citizen stops youths from vandalizing a WW2 memorial.  Citizen is convicted of assault.  (Via Instapundit.)

Obama’s old Iraq plan, which attacked the Surge and proved to be wrong in every regard, has disappeared from his web site.  I think this is as close as Obama is capable to admitting he was wrong.

These people must be stopped.  (Via Instapundit.)