Fast and Furious

April 3, 2011

If you’re wondering what the “gunwalking” scandal is about, National Review has a good summary. (Briefly: the ATF facilitated illegal gun sales to Mexican gangsters, as part of a harebrained scheme to see where the guns ended up. One of the guns was used to kill a US Border Patrol agent.)

UPDATE: Clarified some of the nomenclature.

(Previous post.)


Democrats can’t find the high road with a map

April 3, 2011

Democrats are snooping through Scott Brown’s (R-MA) family’s health records. (Via Instapundit.)


Civility update

April 3, 2011

A conservative think tank has received death threats after the New York Times criticized one of its Freedom of Information Act requests.

(Via Instapundit.)


I prefer the First Amendment, thank you

April 3, 2011

Harry Reid (D-NV) says that the Senate will look into how to deal with the scourge of Koran burning:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says congressional lawmakers are discussing taking some action in response to the Koran burnings of a Tennessee pastor that led to killings at the U.N. facility in Afghanistan and sparked protests across the Middle East, Politico reports.

Great, blasphemy laws. And the idiocy is bipartisan:

“I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war,” [noted RINO Lindsey] Graham told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday.

I wish, just once, this bunch might respond to something like this by affirming our support for the Bill of Rights.


The next union reform battleground

April 1, 2011

While all eyes are on the chaos in Wisconsin (where a state judge has declared that the legislature did not do what it manifestly has done — pass a union reform bill), Ohio has just passed even more consequential union reforms.


Marching orders

April 1, 2011

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) accidentally issues the party’s talking points in front of the press:

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process. . .

“I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”


Obama to ignore War Powers Act

April 1, 2011

The Obama administration has told the House of Representatives that it will not abide by the War Powers Act:

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration’s response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.

Note that the last sentence isn’t true. Yes, all presidents have taken the position that the War Powers Act violates the president’s power as commander-in-chief, but no, they have not ignored the act. The president and the Congress have always avoided a head-on collision over the Act. For example, the president has always either withdrawn the troops or sought (and received) Congressional approval before the deadline, even while maintaining he was not required to so.

That’s what is so remarkable about the administration’s declaration that it will not follow the Act. He is abandoning the tacit agreement between the two branches that Congress will not infringe on the president’s war-making power provided that the president follows Congress’s process.

Why is President Obama doing this? I think we’re seeing a continuation of a pattern we’ve seen since early in Obama’s presidential campaign. Barack Obama is unable to admit to making a mistake. He cannot bring himself to go back and get Congressional approval now, but he knows this war is unlikely to be done within 90 days. And thus he has set the two branches on a collision course.

Can you imagine the reaction had President Bush done this? The legacy media and the left (but I repeat myself) would have seen it as proof that we are on the fast path to fascism or something. But from Obama, we get little more than ho-hum.

(Via the Corner.)


Are you sure this isn’t the Onion?

March 31, 2011

President Obama yesterday received an award for transparency, in a secret ceremony. I swear I am not making this up.


Government at work

March 29, 2011

It’s funny, with all the outrages committed by our government, that something as petty as this could make me so angry. And yet it does.

(Via the Corner.)


FDR: anti-Semite

March 28, 2011

Rafael Medoff, a Holocaust scholar, has uncovered US government documents that shed new light on Franklin Roosevelt’s policy toward Jews. The SS St. Louis incident — in which nearly a thousand Jews fleeing Europe were denied asylum in the United States and sent back to Europe, where many of them were murdered — was no aberration. FDR was an anti-Semite.

The documents, which were publicized last week by former New York mayor Ed Koch, are the record of a meeting in Casablanca between Roosevelt and the notorious French general Auguste Noguès. In the wake of the Allied landings in North Africa, the Vichy government had released most of the Jews from their concentration camps, and Noguès wanted to know how much of the Jews’ civil liberties must be restored. The record (page 608) relates Roosevelt’s response:

It was also stated that the Jews, especially those in Algeria, had raised the point that they wish restored to them at once the right of suffrage. The President stated that the answer to that was very simple, namely, that there weren’t going to be any elections, so the Jews need not worry about the privilege of voting.

Mr. Murphy remarked that the Jews in North Africa were very much disappointed that “the war for liberation” had not immediately resulted in their being given their complete freedom. The President stated that he felt the whole Jewish problem should be studied very carefully and that progress should be definitely planned.

In other words, the number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc.) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population. Such a plan would therefore permit the Jews to engage in the professions, and would present an unanswerable argument that they were being given their full rights.

To the foregoing, General Noguès agreed generally, stating at the same time that it would be a sad thing for the French to win the war merely to open the way for the Jews to control the professions and the business world of North Africa.

The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints that the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany, were Jews.

(Paragraph breaks and emphasis added.)

In regard to the “over fifty percent” statistic, Medoff adds “It is not clear how FDR came up with that wildly exaggerated statistic.”

Such statements from a US president are astonishing and horrifying, and indeed are all the more horrifying because they were not merely anti-Semitic remarks, but a policy to be imposed on North Africa by the Allies.

There is no question as to the veracity of the account, as Koch observes:

Hard to believe a president would say such a thing? Maybe, but the source is unimpeachable: the transcript appears in Foreign Relations of the United States, a multivolume series of historical documents published by the U.S. government itself. The Casablanca volume was published in 1968, but did not attract much notice at the time. Dr. Medoff has done a public service by bringing it to our attention again.

(Via PJ Tatler.)


Biden staff detain reporter in closet

March 28, 2011

The most astonishing story I’ve seen in some time:

Not looking for sympathy here, but the life of a political reporter isn’t all champagne and canapes. Consider our man Scott Powers, who was sent over to the Winter Park home of Alan Ginsburg this morning as the designated “pool reporter” — aka scribe — for the fundraiser where Vice President Joe Biden is appearing on behalf of U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

Turns out the veep hadn’t arrived, but about 150 guests (minimum donation $500) were already in the house. So to prevent Scott from mingling with the crowd, a member of Biden’s advance team consigned him to a storage closet — and then stood outside the door to make sure he didn’t walk out without permission.

This is so bizarre that I was skeptical at first, but it’s been confirmed from a variety of sources. The Biden staff apologized for the incident, but Powers found the apology quite inadequate:

“Scott – You have our sincere apologies for the lack of a better hold room today,” wrote Vice President Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander last Wednesday to Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers. . .

Continued Alexander in her email to Powers: “I am told, once the Vice President and Senator Nelson arrived, the situation was quickly rectified – and hopefully you weren’t waiting too long.”

Powers says the situation was never “rectified.” Any time he stuck his head out he’d been shooed back inside. He said he was held for more than an hour in the closet, was allowed out for 35 minutes of remarks by Biden and Nelson, after which it was back into the closet until the VP left.

Alexander’s note to him thus didn’t quite satisfy him, Powers said. Especially compared with that of Ginsburg who called Powers Friday and apologized, saying Biden’s advance team made all the decisions about the event, Powers said. The wealthy Democratic fundraiser told the reporter he hadn’t even been aware that Powers was there, much less shoved into his closet.

One can’t help wondering whether the Biden staff broke the law. Probably not. It sounds as though Powers meekly accepted the situation, and they didn’t have to force him.

(Via Reason.)


News from Planet Clinton

March 28, 2011

Hillary Clinton, when asked why the administration didn’t get Congressional approval for its action in Libya, spouts a whole lot of nonsense:

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

Point 1: Not unilateral? One of a number of countries? On the contrary, this action has our smallest international coalition in decades.

Point 2: Limited timeframe? Gates said, in the very same appearance, that he has no idea how long it will take. The British say it could take 30 years. (That’s nonsense, but it underscores that we have no idea how long it really will take.)

Point 3: Clearly defined mission? Not remotely.

Moreover, I don’t see how any of those things would absolve the administration of the need (morally, if not legally) to obtain Congressional approval anyway. Furthermore, Gates said, again in the very same appearance, that no vital national interest was at stake, which only heightens the need for the administration to get the people’s representatives on board.

(Via Hot Air.)


Lautenberg the magnanimous

March 26, 2011

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) says we “don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution.” But he will graciously allow us to keep them anyway.

Er, thanks. I appreciate that.


Medicare now mandatory

March 25, 2011

If you are of retirement age and want to keep your current insurance rather than going on Medicare, you are out of luck. Enrolling in Medicare is now mandatory. More precisely, a federal judge has approved a government policy that penalizes persons who decline Medicare by revoking their Social Security. The ruling hinged on a highly dubious interpretation of “entitled” to mean “obligated”.


Ah, the civility

March 25, 2011

Remember all that talk early this year about civility in politics?

Remember how the legacy media said that union thugs shouldn’t be ripping up recall petitions. Remember how they said it was wrong to shoot out the windows of the GOP headquarters in DC? Remember how they said that threats against bloggers for exposing the activities of Wisconsin’s unions were completely out of bounds? Remember how they condemned the vandalism and death threats targeting Wisconsin GOP lawmakers? Remember how they criticized Joe Biden for likening Republican fiscal policy to rape?

And remember all that talk about how martial rhetoric in politics could be dangerous?

Remember how they swore off such things as describing a Media Matters training session as “partisan boot camp where rebel forces were trained for combat on Fox News”. Remember how they criticized violent metaphors such as describing ideological debate  as “gut[ting] everyone”? Remember how they tut-tutted Michael Moore for likening the Wisconsin public-sector union debate to “war”?

Remember the new focus on civility?

Me either.


Body scanners everywhere

March 25, 2011

The Department of Homeland Security is looking at using its hated body scanners outside the airport:

Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports. . .

One project allocated to Northeastern University and Siemens would mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians, assess what they carried, and even track their eye movements. In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.

TSA responded to the Forbes story saying that they have no plans to test body scanners in mass transit environments, but that doesn’t explain why they are funding studies to do exactly that. (Forbes has the documents.) The answer might come from a loophole in TSA’s carefully worded denial: “TSA has not tested the advanced imaging technology that is currently used at airports in mass transit environments and does not have plans to do so.” This leaves open that a slightly different technology might be used.

But never mind that, it pales in comparison to the other part of the story: roving body-scanning vans. DHS vans would prowl the streets searching everyone, no warrants, no notification, no fuss.

Another great idea from the civil libertarians in the Obama administration.


Detroit’s death spiral approaches the end

March 25, 2011

America’s worst-governed big city, Detroit, lost one-quarter of its remaining population during the last decade. I don’t see any floor short of zero.


Miranda down

March 25, 2011

The Obama administration has limited Miranda protection for terrorism suspects:

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades. . .

The Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.

That exception was seen as a limited device to be used only in cases of an imminent safety threat, but the new rules give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.

The new rules were issued last December, but not made public.

Yet another civil rights triumph from the administration that wants to search laptops without a warrant, sample the DNA of every suspect arrested, and track US citizens via their cell phones (without a warrant), that investigated political opponents posing no threat to public safety, and that planned to limit our rights to petition our government. (Those last two policies were reversed after they came to light.)

(Via Professor Bainbridge.)


Gallup survey finds unemployment unimproved

March 23, 2011

Story here. They also look at why they aren’t seeing the improvement that the government is reporting.


Dems lie about health care nationalization

March 23, 2011

The Washington Post reports:

Gifts of bogus statistics for the health-care law’s birthday

House Democrats held a birthday party last week for passage of the health-care law. Just as we looked at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s floor speech noting the milestone, we will now examine some of the claims made by Democrats.

McConnell framed his speech in negative terms, citing data to back up his language. Both Democrats and Republicans can pick and choose numbers and studies to make their case, but we found that generally McConnell did not exaggerate or use bogus figures. . .

By contrast, House Democrats appear to show little hesitation about repeating claims that previously have found to be false or exaggerated. So let’s take a tour through the numbers.

(Emphasis mine, other than the headline.)

The Post story then goes on to look at three big lies told by the Democratic proponents of the health care act: (1) it’s about jobs, (2) it’s about reducing the deficit, and (3) it’s working.


Cooking the books

March 23, 2011

California’s public-sector unions don’t care about keeping/making their pensions solvent; they just want to hide the insolvency from the public.


Smart diplomacy

March 23, 2011

The anti-Qaddafi coalition is collapsing due to lack of leadership:

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign. A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

. . .

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

‘There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,’ he told news channel CNN Turk.

Adding pressure to the already fractured alliance, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has also reiterated a warning that Italy would take back control of airbases it has authorised for use by allies for operations over Libya unless a NATO coordination structure was agreed.

. . .

In the U.S., Obama has made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role in Libya.

As the leader of the free world, leadership is our job. If Barack Obama doesn’t want it, he has no business being president of the United States.


My how times change!

March 23, 2011

President Obama’s old position on presidential war-making power (I noted this one a few days ago):

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Vice-President Biden’s old position on presidential war-making power:

The President has no authority to use force in Iran unless Iran attacks the United States, or there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.

and:

I want to make it clear. And I made it clear to the President that if he takes this nation to war in Iran without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That’s a fact. That is a fact.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s old position on presidential war-making power:

If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.

We are now at war without any imminent threat of attack, and without any Congressional consultation, much less approval, which makes one thing completely clear: This bunch didn’t mean one word of what they said. They are completely full of it. As Joe Biden would say, that is a fact.

UPDATE: Biden is getting grief for his pledge to impeach the president if he takes us to war without Congressional approval. Plus, a second occasion on which he made the pledge.


Republicans look to save the light bulb

March 22, 2011

It’s about time.


Agreeing with George Monbiot

March 22, 2011

The prominent British environmentalist and leftist writes in the Guardian:

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Exactly right. The safety margins are so wide that when an old plant using an obsolete design is hit by as bad a natural disaster as is ever going to happen, nothing really bad happens.

He also cites the XKCD chart.

(Via Instapundit.)


Paul Krugman: hypocrite

March 22, 2011

When Paul Krugman said that he didn’t read any commentary coming from the right, I though it was unsurprising and not worthy of note. But it is worthwhile to note his rank hypocrisy when he comes back, just two weeks later, to write this:

If you’ve reached the point where you don’t pay attention to anything that might disturb your orthodoxy, you’re not doing science, you’re not even pursuing a discipline. All you’re doing is perpetuating a smug, closed-minded sect.

I know of no one more smug than Paul Krugman.

(Via Instapundit.)


My, how times change!

March 20, 2011

Barack Obama on presidential war-making power, in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Barack Obama on presidential war-making power, in 2011:

ε

(Via Instapundit.)

POSTSCRIPT: It’s striking to look over Obama’s other preening answers to the 2007 questionnaire, and compare them to his actions as president. (For example: 123, 45.)

UPDATE: John Larson’s (D-CT) complaint seems fair:

They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress.

(Via Instapundit.)


Naivety

March 19, 2011

It should be obvious to anyone with the slightest grasp of history that sanctions and threats aren’t going to stop a murderous dictator from defending his regime. Should be. But apparently it is not obvious to our president, according to ABC News:

On Tuesday, President Obama became clear that diplomatic efforts to stop the brutality of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi weren’t working.

Presented with intelligence about the push of the Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the president told his national security team “what we’re doing isn’t stopping him.”

Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing for stronger action, but it wasn’t until Tuesday, administration sources tell ABC News, that the president became convinced sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldn’t be enough.

It took President Obama until last Tuesday to figure out what should have been obvious from day one?! I had assumed that Obama knew it probably wouldn’t work, but didn’t care. After all, this is a guy that wanted to pull out of Iraq even if it caused a genocide.

Now they tell us that he actually thought it would work? He actually thought that, for the first time ever, sanctions and threats would be enough to stop a murderous dictator from doing the things that murderous dictators do?

That kind of naivety is horrifying to contemplate.

(Via the Virginian.)


Transparency

March 12, 2011

AP reports:

President Obama once promised that negotiations over his health care overhaul would be carried out openly, in front of TV cameras and microphones. Tell that to the White House now.

Republican congressional investigators got the brush-off this past week after pressing for details of meetings between White House officials and interest groups, including drug companies and hospitals that provided critical backing for Obama’s health insurance expansion.


Cause, meet effect

March 12, 2011

Illinois has instituted a sales tax on Amazon purchases, so Amazon is severing its relationship with Illinois affiliates. As a result, those Illinois affiliates lose their business, and the state ends up with less tax revenue than before.

This idiocy is doubly inexcusable because the same thing has happened in several other states already. It always plays out the same way.


Medicaid often worse than nothing

March 12, 2011

Studies show that Medicaid is so bad, it is often worse than having no health coverage at all.

This underlines one of the main misconceptions that underly the health care nationalization act: the failure to understand the difference between health coverage and access to health care. Obamacare emphasizes the former, to the detriment of the latter.


Harrison Bergeron, call your office

March 12, 2011

A federal judge in Kansas has struck down a tax increase in the Shawnee Mission School District. A victory for individual rights? Not in this case.

The reason the tax hike was struck down had nothing to do with protecting the taxpayer. The tax hike was struck down because it would make that district’s schools too good:

U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum dismissed the case on the grounds that the cap was a crucial and integral part of the state’s complex formula for distributing education funds in a manner meant to ensure that wealthy school districts don’t pull far ahead of poorer districts.

If you want to cap public-school spending to protect the taxpayer, I could get behind that. But capping public-school spending to keep schools from becoming better than others is simply perverse.


Delete me

March 12, 2011

The European Union wants to improve your privacy, but there’s a little problem:

The commission said consumers should be informed “in a clear and transparent way” about how their data will be used. They should also have the right to fully delete digital information, like social networking profiles, and should be informed when their data has been used in unlawful ways, the commission added.

What is this “full delete” of which they speak?


“Unwittingly”

March 12, 2011

Sue Schardt, an NPR board member, speaks:

What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite.

Unwittingly? That hardly seems possible.

“Super-serve the core” — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone’s intention to exclude anyone.

Exclude? Perhaps not. Mock us, slander us, show absolute contempt for us, yes. That doesn’t mean we’re “excluded”; we’re still welcome to listen.

And, of course, we always get to participate through our taxes.

POSTSCRIPT: To be fair, Schardt’s comments are somewhat thoughtful. But ultimately NPR did not become what it is by accident, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

(Via Instapundit.) (Previous post.)


Obama: my opponents are racists

March 11, 2011

President Obama says that opposition to his administration is really all about race:

But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to “take back” their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a “subterranean agenda” in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.

A lot of Americans thought that, by electing a black president, they were proving that America has put race behind her. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened; any opposition to any of the president’s policies is smeared as racist.


Obamacare FSA provision burdens doctors

March 11, 2011

Another small way in which health care nationalization increases health care costs.


Once a crook, always a crook

March 11, 2011

Not always true, but evidently true for Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL). The corrupt, impeached ex-judge is in legal trouble again.


Pot, meet kettle

March 11, 2011

President Obama says it’s “irresponsible” to fund the government using short-term continuing resolutions. Well, maybe the Democrats should have passed a budget when they were in charge.

Also, the administration is suggesting that Obama might veto any further CRs. I doubt it. What we learned in 1994 is when the government gets shut down, it’s of paramount importance not to be blamed for it. If Obama vetoes an unencumbered CR, I don’t see how he can avoid blame, even with the media’s assistance.


Ah, the civility

March 10, 2011

It’s interesting how quickly the talk about civil discourse faded away once the left became angry about something. All of the sudden, Hitler analogies and death threats are just part of healthy democratic debate.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse:

My tag for the “new civility” has always been “civility bullshit.” It was always, obviously, a strategy to control conservatives (while liberals regrouped after the drubbing in the 2010 elections). Now that the Wisconsin protesters have gone so far beyond anything that could be attributed to Tea Partiers or to Sarah Palin maps-with-crosshairs, I suppose the MSM will act as if there never was a new civility movement at all. Suddenly, virulent dissent will be portrayed as noble.


Andrew Klavan explains public sector unions

March 10, 2011

Wisconsin Assembly passes budget repair bill

March 10, 2011

Reports Althouse, who has been doing a much better job reporting this story than anyone else, especially the legacy media.


Why Wisconsin Democrats couldn’t compromise

March 10, 2011

Mickey Kaus observes that point on which it was impossible for the Wisconsin Democrats to compromise wasn’t collective bargaining, but the provision that allows public workers to decline to pay union dues. In Governor Walker’s proposed compromise, he offered to allow public-sector unions to retain most collective bargaining rights (which the unions said was the issue), but retained the union-dues provision (which was the real issue).


Stay tuned

March 9, 2011

James O’Keefe says he has more material on NPR still to come. And a New York Times report suggests that O’Keefe may have material on PBS as well.

(Previous post.)


Wisconsin Senate passes budget repair bill

March 9, 2011

The Wisconsin Assembly will take up the bill tomorrow morning. It should be interesting; on-the-scene reports suggest that the union protesters may be planning a riot.

Senate Republican accomplished the action by amending the bill to remove items that required a three-fifths quorum. Governor Walker had already rejected passing the collective bargaining provision by itself, but a ruling from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (Wisconsin’s CBO) enabled them to pass the bill largely intact. The Bureau found that several items in the bill, although fiscal, were not “appropriations”, and therefore did not trigger the larger quorum. The main provision that had to be deleted was a debt refinancing, which presumably will later be passed alone (unless the Democrats decide to play sore loser).

UPDATE: The Democrats have already begun to complain that the action violated Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law. Republicans apparently believe that an exception in the law allows them to give only two hours notice, rather than 24. I’m sure we’ll hear more about this.

UPDATE: Wisconsin’s Senate Majority Leader explains why they decided to resort to this.

UPDATE: Jim Lindgren has more on the legislative maneuver.

UPDATE: It doesn’t look as though the Open Meetings Law thing is going to fly. The Wisconsin Senate Rules state that the 24-hours notice can be set aside whenever the Committee on Senate Organization determines it is necessary. Another rule might say (it isn’t clear) that even 2-hours notice isn’t necessary, but the Republicans wisely decided not to rely on that. Moreover, the Open Meetings Law contains an exception for when it conflicts with Senate rules. So I think they are in the clear.


New Obamacare waiver: Maine

March 9, 2011

If it’s necessary to exempt entire states from the health care “reform” act, do you think maybe it ought not be a federal law?


Challenge accepted

March 9, 2011

Ha haJames O’Keefe’e sting comes on the heels of NPR’s CEO challenging critics to find any evidence of bias at NPR.

(Previous post.)


Defund NPR

March 8, 2011

The recent incendiary remarks by Ron Schiller, head of the NPR foundation, are just the latest reason for us, the taxpayers, to object to financing NPR. Their “tea bag” cartoon, their firing of Juan Williams, the George Soros grant, etc. are all good reasons as well. (ASIDE: NPR’s president admitted yesterday that they handled the Juan Williams controversy badly. Ya think?)

But let’s set aside all the bias and bigotry. The bottom line is there’s no good reason for the taxpayers to fund a domestic radio network. No one ever tries to defend it on the grounds that we don’t have enough domestic radio. Occasionally some will say it’s good to have commercial-free radio, but most people recognize that NPR’s “enhanced underwriting messages” are no different from commercials. Instead, most NPR supporters say that NPR provides a “different perspective”.  In short, NPR’s supporters like it for its content, and they are afraid that its content won’t survive in the free market of ideas.

Who is NPR’s audience? They are wealthier and more educated than the average American. NPR doesn’t report political affiliation, but it’s fair to assume its audience is more liberal and more Democratic than average. Thus, NPR is a regressive institution, a transfer payment from the masses to the gentry.

I think that NPR will survive being cut loose. After all, it’s audience is a privileged elite. But if I prove to be wrong, I think I’ll be able to manage my sorrow.

(Previous post.)


NPR hates us

March 8, 2011

In a new James O’Keefe video, we learn what NPR executives say about us when they are among friends. Ron Schiller, the head of the NPR foundation, described the Tea Party as

. . . not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

He also showed that he is not only prejudiced against the Tea Party but actually has no idea whatsoever what they are about by asserting:

The current Republican party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian — and I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird Evangelical kind of move.

(The Tea Party is interested in taxes, government spending, and personal liberty; not religion, and the exact opposite of involvement in people’s personal lives.)

He also said that NPR would be better off without federal funding (which might be the only true thing he said), lauded NPR’s handling of the Juan Williams debacle, and failed to object to the statement that “the Jews do kind of control the media”.

NPR is distancing itself from Schiller’s comments, and said that Schiller announced his departure from NPR last week for unrelated reasons. Despite that, NPR’s record makes pretty clear where they stand on the Tea Party.

UPDATE: I think Juan Williams has earned this. Also, Schiller is on “administrative leave” until he leaves for his new job.

UPDATE: Ron Schiller will not be taking his new job at the Aspen Institute.

Also, the NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation), is leaving NPR. According to NPR’s media reporter, she didn’t quit; she was forced out by the board. (Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Hah: “Video Kills the Radio Czar“. Nice. (Via Ricochet.)


Dems bail on Berwick

March 8, 2011

Senate Democrats have reportedly decided not to move on President Obama’s re-nomination of Donald Berwick to run Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t find this surprising, Obama gave Berwick a recess appointment in the first place purely to avoid airing Berwick’s radical views in a public hearing. There’s no reason they’d be any more eager for it now than last year.


Pittsburgh missing $25 million, maybe

March 7, 2011

Could Pittsburgh’s finances be any more scandalously opaque? Yes!

Last year’s pension battle between Pittsburgh City Council and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s office has evolved into a $25 million mystery over how much money is available to buy police cars, pave roads and demolish old homes. . .

[City finance director Scott Kunka] said council’s 2011 budget — which diverted about $13.4 million in parking tax revenue to the foundering pension fund, the first installment in a controversial 30-year, $735.7 million bailout plan — provided no money for the capital fund.

He said the only capital money on hand is about $27 million earmarked for projects in past years but not yet spent. He said he’ll study the list of projects to see how much money might be redirected to meet this year’s needs. . .

Council’s budget director, Bill Urbanic, provided a different account.

In addition to the $27 million remaining from previously authorized projects, Mr. Urbanic said, the capital fund should hold about $25 million that’s not spoken for. He said the money was part of a large capital fund infusion the city made a few years ago and has been tapping annually since.

Mr. Kunka said that $25 million doesn’t exist and hinted that council might have to give up special projects . . . for more pressing initiatives. . .

Councilman William Peduto said council adopted a 2011 capital budget and that various documents reflect the money’s existence. He said the confusion highlights the urgent need for a new financial management system.

“When members of council can’t get information, then the public is kept in the dark, and it’s their money, not the mayor’s money,” Mr. Peduto said, suggesting the mayor’s office is hiding funds to give residents a skewed impression of the city’s finances and embarrass council members in an election year.

(Via That’s Church.)


Obama reinstates military tribunals

March 7, 2011

Remember the fierce moral urgency of change?

President Obama announced Monday that military trials will resume for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, saying he wants to “broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice.”

The president issued an executive order outlining the changes Monday afternoon, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates rescinded a January 2009 ban against bringing new charges against terror suspects in the military commissions.

All that stuff about the horrible immorality of the military tribunals was merely political posturing? Who could have predicted such a thing?

Let’s review: Military tribunals are on. The Surge is retroactively a Democratic accomplishment. The troop withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan is kaput. Guantanamo is still open, with no sign of closing. The FISA Amendments Act (which approved warrantless wiretapping of foreign terrorists even when they call the United States) was passed with bipartisan support, with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton managing to miss the vote (and with announced support from Obama). And the unitary executive theory has been embraced by Democrats.

In short, now that they are in a position where they have to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies in the war on terror, Democrats have embraced nearly every Bush-era policy they used to condemn. In other words, virtually everything they ever said to attack President Bush’s anti-terror policies was simple demagoguery.


Iran to obtain African uranium

March 7, 2011

Well this story sure brings back memories:

A leaked intelligence report suggests Iran will be awarded with exclusive access to Zimbabwe’s uranium in return for providing the country with fuel.

The report – compiled by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog – said Iran’s Foreign and Co-operative Ministers had visited Zimbabwe to strike a deal, and sent engineers to assess uranium deposits. . . Uranium ore, or yellow cake, can be converted to a uranium gas which is then processed into nuclear fuel or enriched to make nuclear weapons.

This should be read keeping in mind that we have offered to give Iran nuclear fuel rods in exchange for giving up its enriched uranium. If they are going elsewhere for uranium, it’s because they have something other than nuclear power in mind.

But of course, no reasonable person contests any longer that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. John Hinderaker juxtaposes this with another story, noting that a new National Intelligence Estimate has finally retracted the infamous 2007 NIE’s absurd conclusion that Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons efforts. It’s not clear what took them so long; the revelation in 2009 of Iran’s secret nuclear installation at Qom, which is too small for civilian use, torpedoed the notion.

In fact, all public evidence is that there was no good intelligence to support the NIE’s conclusion even at the time. Obviously I’m not privy to any classified intelligence, but those who were have written that they were shocked at the time that the NIE was written so strongly. They believe that the NIE was written to be leaked. That would fit into a concerted effort by some at the CIA to undermine Bush administration policy, particularly in regard to Iran.

POSTSCRIPT: Returning to the African yellowcake, it’s hard not to compare with the Joe Wilson fiasco. In light of that, it’s worthwhile to remember that the British investigation ultimately concluded that British intelligence had credible information from multiple sources to support its conclusion that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger. Furthermore, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence discovered that, despite what Joe Wilson told the press, his own findings actually buttressed the case that Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.


Prison rape and the government

March 5, 2011

In 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act created a commission to study the problem of prison rape and issue draft regulations to deal with it. The Justice Department would then have a year to review them and issue regulations. The commission issued its report in June 2009, but the Obama Justice Department is slow-walking its review and scaling back the commission’s recommendations.

I really do not understand it. Preventing brutality against prisoners would seem to be squarely within progressive ideology, so why is Eric Holder working against protecting prisoners? Why is President Obama letting him? This is not a rhetorical question; I wish I knew the answer. Are they responding to pressure from prison-guard unions?

One thing seems certain: of all the criticisms that can be leveled against progressive ideology, support for prison rape is not one of them, so they must be doing this for some political reason. I’ve written before that the Democratic party functions as an alliance of tribes, not as an ideological movement. This seems likely to be a prime example.

(Via Instapundit.)


US government creates fake people

March 4, 2011

Oh, I’m sure this won’t be abused:

The US government is offering private intelligence companies contracts to create software to manage “fake people” on social media sites. Private security firms employeed by the government have used the accounts to create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues.

(Via Instapundit.)


Rule of law, please?

March 4, 2011

Here is a good example of what is wrong with our regulatory state:

[EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson] was questioned [by a House subcommittee] on a variety of topics, ranging from the effects of the agency’s proposed climate rules to whether the EPA would regulate spilled milk.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) made the spilled-milk allegation, asking: “How can the EPA promulgate new rules like this? What’s next — sippy-cups in the House cafeteria?”

Jackson said the agency moved to exempt milk storage from proposed regulations on inland oil containment facilities. “We made it clear in our rules that we were not going to apply the rules to spilled milk,” she said.

(Via Instapundit.)

So these people are writing regulations so broad that they cover spilled milk, but not to worry: they won’t apply them in that case!

How about some freakin’ rule of law, dammit?!

Write the regulation so it means what it says! If you have to institute arbitrary exceptions to avoid obviously absurd results, you’ve written the regulation too broadly. You are giving the power to determine our fate to people, rather than to the law.

And that brings us back, once again, to health care nationalization. Philip Hamburger explains that the myriad waivers that the Obama administration is issuing for the new health care regime violate the Constitution, because they give the president the power to decide who does and who does not have to follow the law. (More here.)


Lies, damn lies, and Paul Krugman

March 3, 2011

If we didn’t already know not to trust figures quoted by Paul Krugman, this would be an object lesson. Iowahawk breaks from his usual format and explains how Krugman’s latest attack on Texas education is full of crap. Alas, my beloved Economist is guilty as well.

Iowahawk debunks figures showing that Wisconsin education is superior to Texas education (Krugman uses dropout rates, the Economist uses standardized test scores), showing that they fail to control for a very important variable:

As a son of Iowa, I’m no stranger to bragging about my home state’s ranking on various standardized test. Like Wisconsin we Iowans usually rank near the top of the heap on average ACT/SAT scores. We are usually joined there by Minnesota, Nebraska, and the various Dakotas; Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire…

… beginning to see a pattern? Perhaps because a state’s “average ACT/SAT” is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy for the percent of white people who live there. In fact, the lion’s share of state-to-state variance in test scores is accounted for by differences in ethnic composition.

If you control for ethnicity in standardized tests, Iowahawk shows that Texas beats Wisconsin in 17 out of 18 categories. (Wisconsin won the last category by a statistically insignificant margin.)

If you control for ethnicity in dropout rates, Wisconsin does slightly better than Texas for white and hispanic students, but Wisconsin does much worse than Texas for black students. Texas beat the national average in all three categories; Wisconsin beat the national average in two, but did much worse for black students.

Paul Krugman is an economist. The Economist is presumably staffed by economists. As any economist knows, you need to control for hidden variables when analyzing data. Neither of them did that. Is that merely malpractice? Or dishonesty?

UPDATE: Iowahawk takes a few questions from people who don’t understand statistics.


Irony

March 2, 2011

When their own funds are at stake, unions behave the same as everyone else. When a union needs to hire picketers, it hires non-union labor. This leads to delicious irony:

The union’s Mr. Garcia sees no conflict in a union that insists on union labor hiring nonunion people to protest the hiring of nonunion labor.


Insider trading

March 2, 2011

High-level officials at the Department of Education that have been attacking for-profit colleges and threatening them with new regulations, have, at the same time, been colluding with short-sellers. (Via Instapundit.)

It’s good to remember that it’s not always about progressive ideology with this bunch; sometimes it’s simple corruption.

POSTSCRIPT: Congress and its staff are exempt from insider trading rules, wouldn’t you know. I’m not sure about the executive branch.


Union thugs

March 2, 2011

Union protesters outside the Wisconsin capitol mob Glenn Grothman, a Republican state senator, and follow him, screaming, as he tries to get into the capitol building. Eventually they pin him into a dead end and won’t let him leave. A Democratic legislator among the protesters eventually intervenes, but even then it takes him several minutes to calm the crowd enough to allow Grothman to leave.

Watch as much of that video as you can stand. Then contrast that with the incident outside the US Capitol that got the media so exercised. In that case, Democratic representatives chose to enter the capitol building through the protesters (they could have more easily taken an underground subway from their offices). The protesters allowed them to pass without any appreciable delay, and do not follow them. The protesters certainly do not pin them into a corner where they need rescue.

Can you imagine the media reaction had the Tea Party protesters done anything remotely like what these union thugs did here?


Lies, damn lies, and Paul Krugman

February 28, 2011

Scott Sumner points out that Paul Krugman’s latest column makes a basic logical error. Krugman notes a study that finds that stimulus spending leads to more jobs where the money is spent, but then makes the logical leap to the proposition that it leads to more jobs overall. Since stimulus spending is highly uneven (indeed, it is allocated exclusively by political considerations), the one hardly implies the other.

Honest mistake? Well, Krugman is a smart guy, but somehow that hasn’t stopped him from a history of mistakes; mistakes that a smart guy like him should be incapable of. His notorious divide-by-ten error comes to mind. At the time he tried to defend himself:

No, I didn’t forget to divide by 10. (For God’s sake: whatever you think of my politics, I am a competent economist, and know how to use numbers.)

Indeed, Mr. Krugman. That’s one reason we don’t think it was an accident.


Violent politics

February 28, 2011

Democrats accuse Republicans of using violent rhetoric in politics. They say they want more civility. They don’t mean it:

Last Friday…. after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, [Democratic State Representative Gordon] Hintz turned to a female colleague, [Republican] Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: “You are F***king dead!”

(Via Instapundit.)

When the left was trying to pin the Tucson shooting on Sarah Palin and other Republicans, they had to stretch to an absurd degree, since they had no real examples. On the other hand, on the Democratic side:

  • Gordon Hintz (D) makes an explicit death threat on the floor of the Wisconsin Assembly.
  • Michael Capuano (D-MA) calls for labor protests to “get a little bloody”.
  • Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) calls for Rick Scott (R, now governor of Florida) to be put against a wall and shot.
  • Rahm Emanuel (D, now mayor of Chicago) recites the names of his enemies, punctuated by plunging a knife into a table and yelling “dead!”.
  • President Obama says “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, and says that a GOP takeover of Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat”.
  • Alan Hevesi (D, then New York State Comptroller, who later resigned as part of a plea agreement in an unrelated corruption case) praises Charles Schumer as the sort of the man who would “put a bullet between [President Bush’s] eyes”.

Keep in mind, that’s just from elected politicians. If I were to open it up to entertainers, journalists, bloggers, union thugs, and/or protesters, we would be here all day.

Am I going to let this go? Not bloody likely. Those jackasses started this thing when they tried to blame a mass murder on our free speech. Now they are going to hear about it every damn time they do they very things of which they falsely accused us.

UPDATE: George Noel (D, head of Massachusetts’s Department of Labor) attacked Wisconsin’s Governor Walker (R) saying, “Make no mistake about it. We are at war.”


Fox reporter assaulted

February 28, 2011

How many reporters have been assaulted at Tea Party rallies? Zero. How many reporters have been assaulted at union rallies? Not zero.


Material support

February 27, 2011

The Wisconsin Democratic party is paying the expenses of Wisconsin’s AWOL state senators.


Enforcing the Constitution

February 27, 2011

People are puzzled by President Obama’s decision not to continue enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act even though he has determined it is unconstitutional. As Glenn Reynolds puts it, “Yes, you take an oath to enforce the Constitution. This may give the President the authority to enforce the Constitution as he sees it, but it surely doesn’t give the President the authority to choose not to enforce the Constitution as he sees it.”

So what is Obama doing? I’m certain that any answer that doesn’t center on political considerations is well off the mark.


No loophole in Wisconsin

February 23, 2011

Wisconsin’s Governor Walker is a smart guy:

There’s been a lot of talk about whether, with the budget bill tied up, Republican senators could pull out the collective bargaining provisions and pass them as a standalone measure. The Senate’s rules require a quorum of 20 senators to pass any bill that involves spending but just 17 senators for nonfiscal bills. Therefore, some believe that Republicans, with 19 votes, could pass the collective bargaining measure on their own.

It won’t work. Walker put out a statement Monday strongly arguing that the collective bargaining provision is in the budget bill because it has a big fiscal impact and therefore would have to be passed by the higher vote standard.

I admit I thought the collective-bargaining-only maneuver sounded a good idea, but Walker is right; using it would undermine the justification for the measure. It might work to get the bill passed, but it would give Democrats a good political argument where they currently have none at all.

UPDATE (3/9): There was a loophole after all, but it wasn’t that one.


Scrubbed

February 23, 2011

Pundit Press reports UW Health’s Department of Family Medicine seems to be scrubbing its website to remove doctors giving out bogus excuse notes to Wisconsin protesters.

I was able to confirm at least part of Pundit Press’s story. This page confirms that one doctor from the list is indeed a part of the Department of Family Medicine, despite not currently appearing on the DFM’s page. More tellingly, Pundit Press reported last night that one Dr. Hannah Keevil was still on the DFM’s page, but she isn’t any longer. Her page at fammed.wisc.edu is empty now but still appears in the Google cache, which proves that pages really are being removed.

What isn’t at all clear is what this means. I’d like to believe this means these doctors are being suspended, but it seems much too soon for that. So why do it?

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Unscrubbed.

UPDATE (3/8): The Univeristy of Wisconsin Department of Family Medicine tells Pajamas Media that their investigation is still ongoing.


Malpractice

February 23, 2011

Ford Vox writes for the Atlantic about the doctors handing out bogus excuse notes to Wisconsin’s union protesters.

What I find particularly disgusting about the affair isn’t what they did, but how they defended their actions even when caught. Absolutely everyone knows these excuse notes are bogus, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. When you say that your excuse notes, handed out en masse to protesters illegally skipping work, are just the same as any other medical excuse notes, all you are saying is that none of your excuse notes are worth anything. Is that true? Maybe it is.

Meanwhile, the State of Wisconsin has joined the University of Wisconsin Health System in investigating the affair.


Pot calling the lightbulb black

February 22, 2011

In an effort to reverse the pummeling they are getting in public opinion over the Wisconsin affair, Democrats have invented a new line of attack, which the legacy media is repeating uncritically. Here’s MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:

My question of course is why does the Governor pick on the unions that didn’t endorse him in the last campaign but give a free ride to the firefighters and the cops who did and the localities? Why did they get off and are allowed to continue to negotiate collectively?

(ASIDE: I love the “of course”. That’s the Democratic attack narrative; “of course” that’s his question.) And here’s CBS’s Chris Wragge:

You say this is a modest request. Now some state workers have been hit harder than others. Your teachers union, which votes Democratic under normal circumstances, hit very hard. Yet your police, state trooper, firemen unions, who all supported and endorsed you, did not get touched in any of this. Why is that?

The allegation is that Governor Walker is letting his friends off, while punishing his enemies.

Walker says the allegation is ridiculous; he is exempting police and fire fighters because he doesn’t want public safety threatened. And events have proven the wisdom of his policy: police and fire fighters can’t legally strike in Wisconsin, but neither can teachers. That hasn’t kept the teachers from walking off the job illegally for days. When teachers strike it inconveniences people and hurts education, when police and fire fighters strike people die.

But that’s all beside the point, because the premise of the attack isn’t true. Walker did not get most of the police and fire fighter endorsements. As he explains to Wragge:

Well, Chris – Chris that actually is not true. There are 314 fire and police unions in the state. Four of them endorsed me. All the rest endorsed my opponent.

So 310 of 314 opposed Walker. Moreover, the large statewide unions of police and fire fighters both endorsed Walker’s opponent. If the legacy media had made even a cursory effort to check the facts before parroting the Democratic line of attack, they would have learned there was no truth to it.

But here’s what is particularly galling about this attack: What Democrats are unfairly accusing Governor Walker of — rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies — is standard practice for the Democrats. The best recent example is the Democrats’ health care nationalization law, which contains a big new tax on medical devices. The reason they levied the tax on the medical device industry as opposed to some other is because the industry was insufficiently enthusiastic in its support for health care nationalization. Industries that supported the effort were left alone, and those that did not were punished.

(Via Instapundit.)


Awesome

February 22, 2011

Wisconsin state senators are now required to pick up their paychecks in person.


Bravo

February 22, 2011

I didn’t hear about this when it happened last October: The SPEECH Act was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Obama. The act protects American’s free speech from libel tourism by making foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the United States unless they comport with the First Amendment (which they never do). Well done.

Congress could still do more. The SPEECH Act protects me perfectly well, because I have no assets abroad, but those who do have assets abroad can still be victims of libel tourism. Congress should extend the law so that those who lose money to libel tourism abroad can recover the damages from any assets the tourists have in America.


We’re winning

February 21, 2011

How do you know we’re winning the Wisconsin budget battle? Here’s how:

White House now disavowing involvement in Wisconsin protests

And can it be any surprise? You could hardly pick a less sympathetic side than the union staging an illegal strike to demand more of the taxpayers’ money during a financial crisis while Democratic legislators flee the state.

It’s crap, though. The president is involved up to his ears.

UPDATE: “White House denies assisting Wis. union, but ties run deep“.


ATF stonewalls gun-running inquiry

February 21, 2011

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) is complaining that the ATF is stonewalling a Senate investigation into the ATF’s gun-running activities (yes, the ATF is engaged in gun-running), and their involvement in the murder of a Border Patrol agent. I don’t think this scandal is going away; subpoenas are presumably next.

(Via Instapundit.)


Paramedic who refused aid reinstated

February 21, 2011

Josie Dimon is the infamous paramedic who left a man to die when she refused to pick him up during Pittsburgh’s blizzard last year:

Beginning early Feb. 6, as the city all but ground to a halt under a crippling blizzard, Mr. Mitchell and his girlfriend repeatedly called 911 seeking help for his abdominal pain. At 5:50 a.m., an ambulance crew headed by Ms. Dimon reached Second Avenue and West Elizabeth Street in Hazelwood.

Citing the snow-covered Elizabeth Street Bridge, Ms. Dimon declined to go any farther and asked for Mr. Mitchell to walk to the ambulance. By 6:09 a.m., city officials said last year, Ms. Dimon had grown tired of waiting.

“He ain’t [expletive] comin’ down, and I ain’t waitin’ all day for him,” she said to a colleague on a call recorded at the dispatch center. “I mean, what the [expletive], this ain’t no cab service.”

Minutes later, Ms. Dimon said, “Is he on his way? Because we are not going to wait all day for him.” . . .

By the time another ambulance reached him Feb. 7, Mr. Mitchell had died.

She left a man to die, because the dying man couldn’t walk to her ambulance. She claims that the dispatcher never told her that this call was serious. I guess you’re under no obligation unless the dispatcher says “we really need you to do your job this time.”

Naturally she was fired, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that her firing was unjustified.

Except for her union, the Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics.

The union filed a grievance saying the Dimon was fired without “just cause”, which is prohibited under the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the City of Pittsburgh. An arbitrator, one James Duff, agreed with the union, and ordered that the city reinstate Dimon with full back pay. The city is appealing the decision.

In his decision, Duff said it was really the fault of the city, the mayor, and the director of public safety. No question, the mayor screwed up by the numbers. But one failing that cannot be blamed on Luke Ravenstahl is Josie Dimon’s unwillingness to get out of her ambulance and walk across a bridge to save a man’s life.

This is where our public-sector unions have taken us: a world in which you can’t even fire a paramedic for leaving a man to die.

(Via That’s Church.)


Fools

February 21, 2011

Some Washington State Democrats are calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would declare that corporations are not persons and are entitled to not of the protections of persons. They are targeting the Citizens United decision, but, as Eugene Volokh points out, they haven’t thought through the ramifications of their proposal: Media corporations would lose the right to a free press, non-profits (e.g., the ACLU) would lose their right to free speech, the government could take corporate property without compensation, the police could search the premises or wiretap the phones of any corporation without a warrant, etc.

In addition to that, these fools continue to misunderstand what the Citizens United ruling actually said. (Probably they are getting their information from the legacy media.) They decry the notion that corporations are persons, but the ruling never said that corporations are persons. On the contrary, the ruling found that corporations are made up of persons who have chosen to organize their efforts as a corporation. Restricting the speech of a corporation means restricting the speech of those persons who make up the corporation.

The average liberal would understand the danger of allowing the government to search the desks in a corporate office without a warrant, but somehow they fail to see the same danger in suppressing their speech.


Political violence

February 21, 2011

Actual political violence, as opposed to the bogus metaphorical kind being hyped by the legacy media, comes from the left, particularly from the unions. At a Tea Party rally in Madison, a thug tried to disable the sound system, and became violent when bystanders tried to stop him.


Columbia sucks

February 20, 2011

All of that talk about excluding ROTC from campus because of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is revealed as just a pretext:

Wounded Iraq vet jeered at Columbia

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

(Via Instapundit.)

They are anti-military, plain and simple. We need to start enforcing the Solomon Amendment on these jackasses. (Of course, that will never happen during this administration.)

I have to add that Columbia University really, really sucks. In addition to their hostility to our military, they play host to a genocidal madman, and they steal their neighbors’ property.


Ah, the civility

February 20, 2011

Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) says we need a watchdog group to grade politicians on their civility. Yeah, because nothing says civility like false accusations of racism.


Malpractice

February 19, 2011

Doctors (or people who claim to be) are giving out medical excuses to Wisconsin teachers who skipped work to protest. What’s even more disgusting than watching them do it (yes, there’s video), is watching them defend their actions. These quacks should be called before the medical licensing board.

Plus, Legal Insurrection makes the connection to nationalized health care:

We have seen the future of the health care system, and it is the doctors on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, handing out free sick notes to public sector union members so they can fraudulently collect their pay for missing work.

Boy, oh boy, I can’t wait for Obamacare. Politicized medicine, massive fraud in the name of progressive politics, and a callous disregard for the law free from fear of prosecution for those aligned with the Democrats.

UPDATE: The University of Wisconsin Health System is investigating.


The Internet kill switch

February 19, 2011

I guess I hadn’t been paying attention. I’ve been hearing people talk about a proposed Internet kill switch, but I assumed that it was either hyperbole or a fringe proposal. Nope. This is an actual bill proposed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Susan Collins (RINO-ME).

Its supporters defend it thus:

Proponents of the bill say it is narrowly crafted and does not intend to limit speech but to eliminate the vulnerability of critical systems such as banks, the power grid and telecommunications from attacks by terrorists or agents of hostile countries.

Indeed, the bill specifically does not grant the president power to act unless a cyberattack threatens to cause more than $25 billion in damages in a year, kill more than 2,500 people or force mass evacuations. The president would have the ability to pinpoint what to clamp down on without causing economic damage to U.S. interests, for anywhere from 30 to 120 days with the approval of Congress, according to the bill.

“This is not Big Brother,” says Tom Kellermann, vice president of security awareness at Core Security Technologies, and a former security expert for the World Bank. “It’s not about shutting off the Internet, but taking a scalpel to command control to key services to protect them.”

Call me unreassured. Who issues the finding that one of this parade of horribles is going to happen, thereby allowing the president to shut down the Internet? The president, of course. The bill specifically prohibits judicial review, and the Congress merely has to be notified. So the limitations are meaningless.

Remember that the Democrats have made it clear that they believe that Sarah Palin can singlehandedly instigate a mass shooting merely by posting a web page calling for the defeat of some Democrats. Against that backdrop, it’s very easy to imagine a Democratic president deciding that Republicans communicating on the Internet are going to cause mass casualties.

Worse still, the proposal is not really for a nationwide kill switch. Such an extreme power could be used only in a legitimate emergency. Instead, the proposal would give the president a “scalpel”, with the power “to pinpoint what to clamp down on.” The president can easily choose precisely who to silence without inconveniencing the general public.

But the president would never do such a thing, right? Wrong. The administration is already shutting down tens of thousands of domains, without any due process at all, for literally no reason other than its confusion about how the Internet works.

Neither is the limitation of the power to dealing with “cyberattack” likely to be any protection. We have seen many times before how racketeering and money-laundering laws have been creatively interpreted to prosecute political activity, and that was with the approval of the courts. Here, the power of creative interpretation would lie with the same person who would exercise the power (remember, no judicial review). That’s no protection at all.

This proposal needs to be soundly defeated.


Helen Thomas spouts again

February 19, 2011

Helen Thomas is a real piece of work. Now that she’s started spouting her hatred of Jews, she seems unable to stop. In a recent interview with Joy Behar (tough interviewer there!) she added to her already voluminous record:

  • She does not regret her earlier pro-Holocaust comments. Since she already retracted her apology, this part isn’t really news.
  • She said Jews didn’t need to leave Europe after World War 2, because they weren’t being persecuted any more. I guess they were supposed to stick around where they had been nearly exterminated, trusting that Europe had had its last pogrom ever.
  • She defended her earlier remarks saying that Jews should return to Germany and Poland, adding “I also said Russia.” Terrific, another country with a history of persecution against Jews.
  • When Behar pointed out that Russia has a history of persecution against Jews, Thomas said “They also had 25 million who died in World War II”. It’s hard to see how that’s even relevant; does Russia’s fight against Nazi Germany somehow excuse its persecution of Jews? Moreover, we should remember that Russia opened World War 2 as Nazi Germany’s ally. The Holocaust was well under way when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa.
  • She defended herself against charges of anti-Semitism saying that she can’t be anti-Semitic when she is a Semite herself. Despite being the lamest defense ever, you hear this all the time from Jew-haters in certain ethnic groups.
  • Finally, she blamed “the” Ari Fleischer and “the” Abraham Foxman for causing her troubles by “distorting everything”. No matter how many different people criticized her after she came out as an anti-Semite, I guess it’s always about the Jews in the end, isn’t it.

(Via Hot Air.)

UPDATE: Corrected a typo that made point 2 confusing.


The gift of clarity

February 19, 2011

The Washington Post reports:

President Obama thrust himself and his political operation this week into Wisconsin’s broiling budget battle, mobilizing opposition Thursday to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits and planning similar protests in other state capitals. . .

The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

This is the President Obama that we know and, well, don’t love. To win re-election, he doesn’t actually need to move to the center. The legacy media will say he is moving to the center, whether he is or not. All Obama has to do is not sabotage that narrative. And that is exactly what he is doing by siding with Wisconsin’s disgusting public sector unions. These guys illegally walk off their cushy taxpayer-funded jobs to demand more taxpayer money, and are rightfully reviled by just about everyone for it.

This is political malpractice, but it seems Obama just can’t help himself. In the next election, Republicans are going to be able to tie Obama to these jackals very effectively; not only has Obama expressed support for the unions, he has been instrumental in furthering their efforts. And the unions are going to look very bad on television.


I don’t want to hear anything from the left about civility ever again

February 18, 2011

More of the same union thuggery, this time from Idaho. (Via the Corner.)


Good luck with that

February 18, 2011

The White House is asking Judge Vinson, the federal judge in Florida that struck down Obamacare, to order states to obey it nonetheless. I read an analysis somewhere (can’t find it now, sorry) that suggested that Vinson’s decision contained some pretty strong hints that he would not issue such an order. But even that aside, isn’t it pretty unusual for a judge to order the winning party to do what the losing party wants?

I think we have to see this as a political decision. Rather than waiting for an appeals court to hear the case, the White House has decided it wants a confrontation with this judge, right now.

UPDATE: This isn’t the same analysis, but it mentions many of the same things.

UPDATE: Here it is:

Also, it should be noted that a few commentators have considered the failure of the anti-Obamacare forces to obtain an injunction against the act as some kind of victory. It really isn’t. Instead the court reasoned that a judgment declaring the law to be unconstitutional is sufficient relief to the plaintiffs because “there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” (internal quotation marks removed.) In other words, he felt that the Federal Government would try to obey the law without the court formally ordering its obedience. But believe you me, if the Obama administration ignores this ruling, the court can and certainly will revisit the matter and issue an injunction.


Transparency

February 18, 2011

The Obama administration has censored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s report on the safety evaluation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. Presumably this means that it disagrees with administration policy, which is to stop the Yucca facility regardless of what the science says.

NOTE: I’m not being bombastic here. The administration’s policy is literally to ignore the science. Specifically, the NRC chairman gave orders last October to stop looking at the science.

(Via Instapundit.)


The Battle of Madison

February 18, 2011

The battle going on in Madison, Wisconsin today is truly consequential. Schools are closed as Wisconsin teachers continue their illegal strike for a third day, protesting the budget being considered by the state legislature.

In the last election, voters turned control of the state House and Senate and the governorship over to the GOP. The GOP is keeping its promise to fix the state budget, and — as in most states — Wisconsin’s key problem is the public sector unions. The unions won’t accept the verdict of the voters, and are bringing pressure (ugly, ugly pressure) to defeat the budget.

Politicians across the country are paying close attention to Madison. If the unions succeed in scuttling this reform despite losing the election, that will be a signal to the rest of the country not to take on the unions. That will mean the fiscal ruin of the states, and probably an end to our federalist system. But a victory in Madison will encourage reformers around the country, in addition to saving the state of Wisconsin.


Who questions the patriotism?

February 17, 2011

Once again, while the left always accuses the right of attacking their patriotism, it is the left that actually does it.


The continued decline of Great Britain

February 17, 2011

British homeowners can’t put wire mesh on their windows. It might hurt burglars.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: This might not be true.


Hide out at Hooters

February 17, 2011

While Wisconsin teachers were staging an illegal and very ugly strike to protest a bill the would cut the state budget, Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators skipped town to prevent a vote from taking place. The legislators were located at a resort in Rockford, Illinois. To get a sense of the nature of the resort, a picture is worth a thousand words.


Violent rhetoric

February 17, 2011

UPDATE: More violent rhetoric, and still more. And more yet.

UPDATE: And more.


Due process

February 16, 2011

Last weekend, the Department of Homeland Security seized 84,000 domains, and replaced those sites with a banner asserting that they were trafficking in child pornography. All but ten of them (at most) were innocent. None of the owners had the opportunity to fight the action, nor were any of them even notified it would happen.

Homeland Security is unembarrassed.

(Via Instapundit.)


Smart diplomacy

February 16, 2011

The Obama administration was warned of instability in Egypt nearly a year ago:

Early last year, a group of U.S.-based human-rights activists, neoconservative policy makers and Mideast experts told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that what passed for calm in Egypt was an illusion.

“If the opportunity to reform is missed, prospects for stability and prosperity in Egypt will be in doubt,” read their April 2010 letter.

The correspondence was part of a string of warnings passed to the Obama administration arguing that Egypt, heading toward crisis, required a vigorous U.S. response. Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s 82-year-old dictator, was moving to rig a string of elections, they said. Egypt’s young population was growing more agitated.

The bipartisan body that wrote to Mrs. Clinton, the Egypt Working Group, argued that the administration wasn’t fully appraising the warning signs in Egypt. Its members came together in early 2010, concerned that the Arab world’s biggest country was headed for transition but that the U.S. and others weren’t preparing for a post-Mubarak era.

This makes the administration’s flat-footed response to the crisis even more inexcusable.

(Via Instapundit.)


Disgusting

February 15, 2011

Being a leftist is like having a get-out-of-jail-free card. Without the scrutiny of a hostile media, the left has never been forced to purge its racist elements, as the right has. Thus the left has become something of a refuge for racist elements that are largely extinct elsewhere. And that applies not just to the fashionable forms of racism, just as hatred of whites, Asians, and Jews, either. If you’re on the left, it seems you can refer to a prominent black man as a “monkey” and a “minstrel”, provided he is a conservative.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey contrasts Alternet’s tolerance — nay, promotion — of racism with CPAC, which ran off a white-supremacist recruiter.


No free speech in Austria

February 15, 2011

An Austrian court fines a woman for criticizing Islam.


First Amendment under attack

February 12, 2011

The Tucson Tea Party says that public officials have been trying to silence them by intimidating prospective speakers.


Great moments in government procurement

February 11, 2011

(Via Patterico.)


Awaiting outrage

February 11, 2011

The left went crazy over the Bush-era Terrorist Surveillance Program, in which we eavesdropped on foreign terrorists’ communications without a warrant. I’ll be interested to see what the left thinks of this:

The Obama administration’s Justice Department has asserted that the FBI can obtain telephone records of international calls made from the U.S. without any formal legal process or court oversight, according to a document obtained by McClatchy.

We’ll find out who really cares about this sort of thing, and who just found it a convenient club with which to attack the Bush administration.

(Via Instapundit.)


Pittsburgh’s pension woes

February 11, 2011

Pittsburgh’s underfunding problem (its pensions are 29.5% funded) is among the worst in the nation.


FOIA follies

February 11, 2011

The Justice Department acts on Freedom of Information Act requests selectively, depending on the politics of the requester. J. Christian Adams calls this a “bombshell”, but I don’t think it’s the least bit surprising.


Dangerous times

February 10, 2011

Michael Ledeen:

Bad day for the “Intelligence Community” here in Washington. CIA chief Leon Panetta opined that Mubarak was very likely going to resign in a few hours, while DNI (Director of National Intelligence) General James Clapper declared the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular” and has “eschewed violence.” These analyses from our mastodontic Intel establishment no doubt encouraged the president to gush about living through an historic moment in world history, and to proclaim that young people were primarily to praise for the epic events of the day.

Except that Mubarak didn’t resign, and the Brothers aren’t secular and have long embraced and practiced violence, and we don’t yet know exactly what history is being made, let alone who is making it.

In recent decades the CIA has become thoroughly political and bureaucratic, and at the same time has become incompetent. I doubt this is a coincidence. We ought to junk the whole thing and start over.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: OMG, the director of the CIA testified to the House of Representatives based on what he’d seen on the news:

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day. American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee.

President Obama is right, we are witnessing history unfold. This administration is inventing a whole new kind of incompetence.

(Via Instapundit.)


CBO: Obamacare kills jobs

February 10, 2011

According to the director of the CBO, Obamacare will cost nearly a million jobs over ten years. And that’s just under the absurdly optimistic assumptions that the CBO is required to use.