• 2008 is not 2012.
• Obama’s campaign will focus on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain and in Massachusetts.
• It’s going to get nasty.
• Obama’s campaign managers like to use expletives…in every effing sentence, man.

The Obama team, writes Heilemann, will try to focus on certain demographic groups the president won big in ’08 – “minorities, (especially Latinos), socially liberal college-educated whites (especially women), and young voters.”

In other words, the president’s team will seek to motivate and deepen his base, rather than reaching out and expanding on it. This explains his “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage—at least two of those three demographics are with him on that issue.

It also explains his class warfare rhetoric and the attacks on Bain Capital. The team is probably trying to exploit any resentments minorities and young voters (looking, unsuccessfully, for employment) might have against “Wall Street” and large corporations in general.

Even as Democratic supporters shook their heads over the Obama team’s attacks on Romney’s experience at private equity firm Bain Capital, the public at large was saying “Bain who?”

More than 50 percent of those surveyed in a WSJ/NBC poll didn’t have any opinion at all on Bain, meaning it could very well be fertile material for the president’s team to use. “The electorate is a long way from making up its mind” about Bain and Romney’s involvement in it, says Politico writer Alexander Burns, which could be one reason the Obama team won’t necessarily drop this theme, despite criticism from allies.

The Bain ads, in fact, might just be the trailer for the campaign to come—a rock ’em/sock ’em action flick filled with negativity, negative exaggerations and…even negative flat-out falsehoods.

Don’t take my word for it, though. Here’s David Plouffe of the Obama campaign, quoted in John Heilemann’s article:

“We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what (Romney) would do as president…Potentially abortion will be criminalized. Women will be denied contraceptive services. He’s far right on immigration. He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.”

Hey, why stop there, David P.? Why not suggest that Romney will take away women’s vote, criminalize homosexuality, and not just deport illegal immigrants but execute them? I can hear the ominous campaign ad music right now.

Heilemann goes on to report that hope-and-change will be replaced by fear this time around because the Obama campaign believes the Republican/Romney agenda is a frightening prospect for America.  Says Heilemann:

For anyone still starry-eyed about Obama, the months ahead will provide a bracing revelation about what he truly is: not a savior, not a saint, not a man above the fray, but a brass-knuckled, pipe-hitting, red-in-tooth-and-claw brawler determined to do what is necessary to stay in power—in other words, a politician.

Which leads to an interesting question, one several of my family members and I pondered during Memorial Day festivities: what acts of desperation will Obama’s teams perpetrate if things are close or not going well come the fall?

My first thought was a reverse-psychology blow, perhaps encouraging some unnamed billionaire to run a tasteless, unsavory attack (maybe something with a whiff of racism?)…on Obama, so that the president could play the victim and point his finger at the disgusting right-wingers who want to remove him from the Oval Office.

Think that’s crazy? In Heilemann’s article, the Obama campaign was licking its chops at the prospect of super-PAC ads featuring Jeremiah Wright.

“Our reaction was, ‘F***ing bring it on!’” said one Obama campaign veteran in the article. “It let us raise some righteous indignation in our base…and go to African-American leaders and say, ‘Hey, you need to get out there! Threaten boycott against TD Bank!’”

Other family suggested that a fall surprise might include digging up something from Romney’s past—no matter how tangential (after all, the Bain attacks feature events that took place after Romney had left Bain)—about illegal immigrant abuse and/or employment.

Whatever happens, the Romney campaign won’t be able to count on mainstream media to help voters sort fact from fiction. After all, this was the same crew that questioned Sarah Palin’s intelligence and qualifications while giving good ole boy Joe Biden a pass (he was a guy, a Democrat, and had been around a long time – so, numerous gaffes and policy blunders didn’t signify a thing, right?).

The Obama team had it relatively easy in 2008. John McCain didn’t excite Republicans. People were tired of the Bush years and everything they associated with him—from the wars to economic policies—and Obama represented a blank canvas upon which voters could paint their own particular hope and faith in this country.  This year will be harder since the canvas is now filled with other pictures—a still-foundering economy, global unrest and partisan politics in all its glory (I don’t write that sarcastically).

Speculation abounds about how smart the Obama campaign really is. But it sounds as if they intend to substitute nasty for smarts, if their smarts aren’t up to the job. I hope the Romney team is prepared.

____

Libby Sternberg is a novelist.

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

The Obama references are inserted at the end of each bio, in special blocks entitled “Did you know?”  Check out the bios since Coolidge.  Interestingly, there is an Obama blurb with the Nixon bio, but not with the Ford entry.  Here are the two Obama-related comments at the Reagan page:

•         President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day.
•          In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

The White House confers honor on President George H.W. Bush as follows:

President Barack Obama awarded George H.W. Bush the 2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, for his commitment to service and ability to inspire volunteerism throughout the country, encouraging citizens to be “a thousand points of light.” The administration continues to promote service and civic engagement, honoring heroes of local communities as “Champions of Change” and fostering civic participation.

RNC depiction of a Moment of Eventhood

The Republican National Committee, perhaps a tad unfairly, has created a series of photoshops depicting Obama in events from history.  The one making the rounds is Obama landing on the moon, but I prefer the one with Elvis meeting Nixon, for its Gump-ish quality.

Of course, Obama’s staff is not inserting him into history.  Let’s just make that clear.  But in claiming that the Buffett Rule is like something Reagan would have promoted, it is certainly attempting to rewrite history.  I’m sure we can count on President Romney to end this strange practice, to let the presidential bios stand on their own, and to stick to hailing the sitting president’s policies over on the policy pages.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

For northern Ohio, the price was a surreal $357 per megawatt – because northern Ohio has been heavily reliant on coal plants that will all be shut down by 2015.

These increases can only be passed on to the consumer – or taxpayer.  Again, this is what bidders actually committed to pay for power generating capacity.  As Doug Ross reminds us, this isn’t information from a model; it’s a real-world, market-driven data point.  It’s going to cost that much to generate power without the coal plants.  If you want electric power, you’re going to have to pay the rate that makes it possible to generate power at that cost.

And, of course, almost no one can afford to do that.  Suppose the eight-fold increase in the auction price produced a commensurate eight-fold increase in the unit price of a kilowatt-hour for the consumer.  (It may not, but it will produce a significant increase, probably on the order of 500-700%.)

Imagine the average $120 or so monthly electric bill of Northeasterners exploding to $960 a month.  The 500-700% increase would produce average bills running from $600-720 a month.

Even just doubling the amount of people’s electric bills would entail a huge economic shock.  The eight-fold-increase numbers are hard to get our minds around, but supposing that the increase no more than doubled or tripled the amount of the average electric bill – with the residue being absorbed by taxpayer-debt-funded government programs – it would still have a very disruptive effect on social cohesion.  Only a small percentage of Americans would riot in the streets, but millions of Americans would begin fleeing the areas where they could no longer afford to live.

Those who already live in rural parts of northern Ohio would no doubt turn exclusively to diesel generators, propane heaters, and wood fires.  (Which we can expect would then be outlawed.)  They and their rural confreres in the neighboring states would be joined by more and more refugees from the cities.  Suburbanites would go off-grid to the extent they could, but would remain captive to urban regulation.  Many in the Northeast and Midwest would make the long delayed decision to move elsewhere – south and west – even if that meant losing the investment in their homes.  Still others would begin considering the move for the first time.

What Americans will not do is blithely revert to living in 19th-century conditions in the cities.  More than household electric bills will skyrocket:  the cost of everything in life that relies on electricity – in other words, everything – will skyrocket as well.  Retailers, no matter what they sell, will have to charge much, much more for their products, not only because making them costs the producers more, but because keeping the lights on or the machines operating in the retail facility will cost so much more.

This electricity increase will force thousands of businesses to shut down.  Even many big businesses can’t handle this cost increase.  It will kill more jobs than anything has to date, making the Great Depression look like a roaring recovery.  It will make things we take for granted, like fresh produce, impossible to obtain unless you live right next to a farm (and live outside of the Northeast, where commercial farming will die out entirely) – but it will also distort and suppress all kinds of sophisticated and packaged production, including those related to the most basic necessities.  The price of gasoline may remain comparatively stable, but if there are far fewer retailers to ship products to, many truckers will still go out of business.

Doug Ross cites the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) predicting that the massive shutdown of coal plants will compromise the reliability of the power grid in the Northeast.  But we must also consider the likelihood that power companies will lose so many customers, and lose so much revenue, that they will go under.  “Saving” them with big bailouts would only make the areas they serve more beholden to their “patrons” in the federal government.

These are mostly first-order effects.  As distortions mushroomed in the Northeast, we can assume that the federal government would not stand idle.  If its priority remained limiting the people’s access to electric power, it would do whatever was necessary to ensure that there would be no benefit from fleeing to the other parts of the country.

The bottom line on this prospective skyrocketing is that it cannot happen without tremendous social disruption.  That doesn’t mean the American people will turn violent or undisciplined – a small minority would, and they are already displaying their character as we speak – but it does mean that we cannot continue life as we know it, with almost everyone in the northeastern part of the country artificially priced out of the convenience of central-grid electric power.

Keep in mind, this is entirely artificial.  This is government policy, made independently of any sort of outside crisis.  Nothing imposes this on us except the Obama administration’s acceleration of hallucinatory ideological extremism.

Ross notes that after NERC published its estimates on the reliability problems of the future power grid, it was promptly investigated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Where the Campaign Must Win to Win

In assessing the electoral power base, the campaign should always keep in focus the major goal of the campaign. It is not to acquire at least “50% plus one” of the votes cast in the fall for Mitt Romney. It is to secure at least 270 electoral votes. Thus, properly targeting the states forms the key strategic element in winning the presidency. These target states are listed below. It is important to note, that not only must the campaign play in formerly Bush 2004 states, it must also expand into areas which President Bush lost in 2000 and 2004. 290 electoral votes should not be a ceiling for this campaign. If the campaign goes well and things break its way, a victory of over 300 electoral votes is not out of the realm of possibility.

Governor Romney starts the election with a solid base of 16 states (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah) and 131 Electoral Votes (EV).  He can also be fairly confident of capturing (in degree of confidence) South Carolina, Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Missouri, and Indiana for an additional 60 EV. This gives Governor Romney a fairly safe starting point of 191 EV to rely on (although I would keep an eye on AZ, MO, and IN just in case, but if things go right, he won’t have to worry much about them).

That leaves 79 EV short of  the magic 270. President Obama has been said to have a solid blue wall. Sean Trende has pointed out that the wall is not as strong as some would have you to believe. However, barring a collapse of epic proportions, President Obama can safely count on 10 states (Hawaii, California, Illinois, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia for a total of 149 EV. Add to that in order of safety Washington, Maine (excluding the 2nd District), Oregon, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Minnesota, President Obama can safely rely upon 200 EV (remember Maine’s 2nd District leans D and isn’t likely D).

So what’s up for grabs? I have identified 12 states/districts that can be won with varying degrees of possibility. In all honesty, it is difficult to say at this point whether more states will be winnable when things develop further. The states are in order of likelihood of turning from blue to red along with my current assessment as to where they are leaning:

1. North Carolina (15 EV)-Lean R
2. Florida (29 EV)-Tossup/Lean R
3. Ohio (18 EV)-Tossup
4. Virginia (13 EV)-Tossup
5. Iowa (6 EV)*-Tossup
6. Wisconsin (10 EV)-Tossup
7. New Hampshire (4 EV)-Tossup
8. Colorado (9 EV)-Tossup
9. Pennsylvania (18 EV)-Tossup/Lean D
10. Maine 2nd District (1 EV)-Lean D
11. Nevada (6 EV)-Lean D
12. Michigan (16 EV)-Lean/Likely D

Some notes on these rankings. The way things are going now, I believe that Governor Romney will win North Carolina and probably Florida too. However, I am not confident enough to put them in the Governor’s column just yet, though North Carolina is fast approaching that point. Also, I’d be willing to bet that Missouri and Indiana are just as much in play as Nevada, Michigan, and Maine 2 are. The only reason Michigan is on this list is that Governor Romney has close ties to the state and Michigan just elected a Republican governor. Otherwise, I would put the state in President Obama’s column as a likely. In fact, if it weren’t for Governor Romney’s ties to Michigan, I would rate Minnesota as a more likely pick-up opportunity. In 2008, McCain lost Michigan by 17 points, but Minnesota by a little over 10 and according to the Trende article, Minnesota has been quietly trending more Republican over the years, while Michigan has been going the opposite direction.

Also, if you wanted to be really focused on targeted states. I would reduce the list from 12 to 9. I am fairly confident that Governor Romney will win North Carolina, and I am doubtful, but still hopeful about his winning ME 2, Nevada, or Michigan. If one wants to move those states to their respective columns, I see Governor Romney with 23 states and 206 electoral votes and President Obama with 18 states and D.C for 223 EV. 9 states and 109 Ev will probably decide this election.

Just a couple of notes on using campaign resources. If the campaign notes significant movement in New Jersey, Minnesota, or Maine 2, then diverting campaign resources to those areas could have high marginal utility. New Jersey has a popular Republican Governor and the Romney campaign will be reaching South Jersey through its ads in the Philadelphia media market. Minnesota is right next to Wisconsin and if their is movement there, additional investment can be done without too much trouble. Maine 2 is right next to New Hampshire, where campaign resources will already be used. Thus, barring an unforseen catastrophe on either side, I see Governor Romney with a realistic ceiling of 315 EV and a maximum plausible ceiling of 362 EV. I don’t see President Obama eclipsing his performance in 2008 and thus given the EV shifts, I see his max ceiling as 380 (his 2008 totals minus electoral college shift plus Arizona and Missouri).

“It would have been better to solve it (the Iranian nuclear crisis) in a diplomatic way, by using pressure and without applying military force,” the ambassador clarified at the closed meeting, “But that does not mean that this [attack] option is not possible. Not only is it possible, it is ready. The necessary planning is in place to make sure it’s ready.”

Well, OK.  The question is not whether we are ready or should be ready for this option – um, of course we are; would we tell anyone if we weren’t? – the question is why our ambassador in Israel would say this.  (Read the full comments for the unnecessarily explicit flavor.)

First of all, an ambassador – or at least his top advisors – knows that bellicose comments of this kind do not accord with the conventions of diplomacy.  You don’t go around assuring other nations that you’ve been practicing to attack a third party.  Besides being operationally stupid, it’s potentially both destabilizing and destructive to your credibility.

Instead, you state what your national interests are, you clarify the outcome you’re looking for, and you assure the relevant audience that you will do what it takes to protect your interests and secure your outcomes.  The point is not whether the audience knows that you have actually tested a military OPLAN (who cares? We test them regularly), the point is for them to understand exactly what you want and the seriousness of your determination.

A warning (or, in this case, an assurance) that the US is ready to attack Iran was almost certainly given on orders from the White House, since it’s not something a diplomat would naturally be moved to say, or say without permission.  It’s a combination of operational TMI and inflammatory rhetoric: a sort of anti-diplomacy.

Second, this is a threat that can’t be convincingly conveyed in a fey, indirect manner.  If we mean this threat and we want it to affect Iran’s decisions, then say it to Iran.  (I would advise putting it in different terms.)  Putting the threat out there in the guise of an assurance to Israel just looks manipulative.

It also looks spurious and irresponsible, if we’re going to sit down with the Iranians in Baghdad later this month and “negotiate.”  What, exactly, are the Iranians supposed to assume about this threat?  What action of theirs could trigger it?  Does it clarify the US position, or obfuscate it?  With the threat of war, it is not actually a good idea to be overly clever and create doubt about triggers and your intentions. If you’re going to deploy the war card, certainty is the mindset you want your intended audience to have.

In any case, if the US and the Western powers make the offer of a sweet deal for Iran, in the hope of getting some kind of agreement – a prospect endorsed by the analysis of long-time observer Gerald Seib in this video – that signal will be at odds with the over-explicit threat of attack.  It would be hard to be convincing about a coherent position in that case.

Regarding the point on military preparations, I know many readers try to stay abreast of where the aircraft carriers are, and that’s not necessarily a fool’s errand.  It’s important not to go all “Pat Buchanan” about it – there are two carriers in the Persian Gulf region at least twice a year because they are turning over their patrol duties; it’s not a sign of the Apocalypse – but it can be a useful indicator.  That said, I advise you not to try this at home if you aren’t familiar with US Navy operations.  The presence of two or more carriers in the Central Command “AOR” (area of responsibility) is almost always an indicator of strike group turnover – or simply a coincidence due to a rare circumstance like USS Abraham Lincoln’s (CVN-72) recent change of homeport from Everett, Washington to Norfolk, Virginia, which involved an extra transit through (and deployment in) the Middle East.

The US administration announced earlier this year that it would be keeping two carriers on station in the Gulf region for the time being.  That gives the president a ready option in case he wants to ramp up pressure on Iran.  I would not obsess over the carriers, however.  They will undoubtedly participate if there is a strike on Iran – they will be indispensable for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, and their F/A-18 strike-fighters will no doubt be used for the precision targeting of hardened sites, among other tasks for the airwings – but they may well not be the centerpiece of the operation.

If President Obama were to scope a strike on Iran as I believe he would – narrowly, striking only a limited set of nuclear-related targets – the strike may well be conducted as a “prompt global strike,” according to the doctrine and capability of the same name, which has been in development since the last year of the Bush administration.  It could involve mostly cruise missiles and “global airpower”:  B-2 and B-52 bombers launching their missions at a distance from Iran, including launches from US territory; i.e., Whiteman and Barksdale.  (I doubt that it would involve long-range ballistic missiles, which are not accurate enough for most applications in this kind of strike.)  The strike would certainly be conventional, not nuclear.

All that said, if an agreement is reached with Iran in the next couple of months, it will be because the agreement is advantageous to Iran, delaying the EU sanctions which are to kick in this summer, and requiring nothing of Iran that the mullahs were not willing to concede.  Any agreement that does not entail full, unannounced inspection of all Iran’s suspect facilities and nuclear-related programs, as well as Iran’s adherence to the “Additional Protocol” of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is an agreement that will not stop the nuclear weapons program.  That kind of agreement, however, is what we are virtually guaranteed to get.

For the United States, issuing attack threats in the manner of Hugo Chavez is not a convincing posture.  I don’t know if the Israelis will find it reassuring; I suspect the Europeans and Iranians will find it annoying, and decide to ignore it.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Meet the Candidate:

watch?v=droDXGJ7Dz8

As White House Dossier correctly points out, the RNC should look at the potential here, particularly against the (apparently) non-insane Wolfe.  The challenge comes at an awkward time for the Obama campaign, on the heels of last week’s West Virginia fiasco in which The One was unable to break 60 percent against a federal inmate.  I see enormous potential for mayhem here, especially after the awesome clowning that was Juddmentum.

There’s little to no risk, now that the rest of the GOP field has tapped out.  Think about it, Arkansas Republicans…it’s like a hashtag hijack, only funner!

Crossposted at El Tercer Riel.  Tweeting out of @BonillaJL.

The media has covered a smorgasbord of articles ranging from birth control to women to gay marriage in 2012. Leftists have denounced the GOP’s supposed “War on Women” in recent months for their opposition to the birth control mandate and support of personhood laws in a growing number of states. Meanwhile, liberal groups throughout the county decried George Zimmerman’s “racial motives” for shooting Trayvon Martin before he got his day in court. Zimmerman might very well be guilty as sin but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Then, in a “surprise” (and by surprise I mean, no surprise at all), President Obama came out in support of gay marriage just after North Carolina banned the practice and Gallup reported that just over 50% of Americans support the practice. How convenient.

Strangely, most of the biggest news stories in the US in the months leading up to the 2012 election have been social, not economic, issues. The Obama administration’s focus on these issues is not one of genuine concern. Rather, it is nothing but a political ploy. First, social issues tend to be the most contentious. Supporters and opponents of gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. tend to be far apart on the political spectrum and the interests groups are generally well-ensconced in their own opinions. Bringing up these issues ignites the numbed passions of Obama supporters, many of whom have resorted to lukewarm support in the face of the President’s less-than-stellar record. This is a far cry from the passionate obsession of the Obama Zombies during the 2008 election. The Administration is looking for any way to re-ignite theses passions and get their supporters to the polls.

Additionally, the focus on social issues places the spotlight back on the Obama Administration, a spotlight that has been solely focused on the GOP contenders in the last several months. Obama is unable to run on his actual record, considering his history of economic failures. Therefore, the President and his supporters have turned the spotlight on issues which can actually garner some support from his liberal allies (all while ostracizing the right of course). It’s as if Obama woke up last week, looked at his record, and said, “Hmmm rising unemployment, falling poll numbers…OH LOOK GAY MARRIAGE…I can use that.” These social issues are merely a distraction from Obama’s abysmal record. They are also a way to refocus the spotlight on the President and sooth his inflated ego.

What this political maneuver shows is the president’s complete lack of accountability. He’s unable to answer for his faults or stand up for his decisions, even when they have failed. When all else fails and Obama cannot ignore the glaring shortcomings of his administration, he simply blames his predecessor. The economy, partisanship, turbulent world situation…all Bush. (Note: Ignore the fact that the average unemployment rate under George W. Bush was about 5%) Joe Biden took this on last week, blaming Bush for our turbulent relations with Iran. There is certainly a high degree of character deficiency in the White House right now. The President and his blind supporters are unable to take responsibility for anything, evidence of political and personal weakness. It’s tough to stand by your decisions honestly and answer for your failures. Yet, for the President of the United States, it is part of his job description. The President is not supposed to “Pass the Buck.” Unfortunately for us, our current Commander-in-Chief is more than willing to “Pass the Buck…Over there.” Oh look, a political distraction!

The temptation is strong to just let this one go.  But it’s actually a perfect example of where Romney is, um, challenged, and why my enthusiasm for him remains tepid.  The short version of my point is that the president has no business restructuring auto companies and trying to guide them through “recovery.”  He is not empowered by any part of the US Constitution to do this, and it’s a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea in any case.

If I want the services of someone who’s good at reorganizing auto companies, I’ll invest money in a private business.  That’s not what we elect a president for.  The president of the United States, our highest elected public official, needs to keep his paws off the management of private companies.  When he doesn’t, the window is flung open to cronyism, graft, bad business decisions, and distorted, uneconomic incentives.

The US auto industry keeps snuffling up to the public trough – has been doing so for 30 years now – because it is required by the government to operate under unprofitable conditions.  It is tended by the federal government as an interest of politically connected constituencies.  It has been artificially constrained and incentivized for so many years now that to say it has “recovered” is a wholly political statement, bearing no useful relation to the Big Three’s actual profit-loss or earnings picture, stock price, or any other measure of business health.

In fact, Chrysler’s much-touted “payback” of its taxpayer bailout turned out to involve a shell game in which the US Department of Energy is lending Fiat $3.5 billion so that Fiat can pay off its US Treasury loan and pump Chrysler with cash by exercising an option to buy Chrysler stock.  The Washington Times describes the transaction as follows:

So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

That’s government management in a nutshell.  Romney can’t manage the auto industry better – not from the Oval Office.  No one can.  If he wants to run auto companies, he needs to see if Ford, GM, or Chrysler is hiring.  If he wants to guide them through bankruptcy, he can become a federal regulator or get himself appointed as a bankruptcy judge – and in either case, follow the law on the matter as written by Congress, rather than getting creative and exercising powers the Constitution doesn’t give him.

When Romney speaks of the US auto industry recovering, he is speaking in the language of big, dirigiste government, accepting at face value the short-term effect of a bailout process that has served mainly to perpetuate unprofitable but politically entrenched conditions.  It guarantees that more subsidies will be needed down the road.  The taxpayer had to be billed for getting the Chevy Volt built and maintaining the political sway of the UAW, because those are special-interest mandates that no one would pay for voluntarily.  The bailout under Obama has simply been a pretext for expanding the unprofitable conditions that make the US auto industry unable to truly “recover,” in the sense of not continuing to need bailouts.

A president who doesn’t see this is hard to get excited about.  There is no point in claiming that Romney does see it, when he never speaks as if he does.  About the auto industry bailout, what he ought to say is that it was improperly handled by Obama through executive actions that must not serve as precedents; that it hasn’t turned out to be a good deal for the taxpayer; and that due-process bankruptcy without presidential intervention would have been the right way to proceed and should have been defaulted to.

Romney’s utterances on this topic indicate that he is a big-government politician.  Not only is he not offended by the bailout, he’s not offended by the Obama administration’s dirigiste approach to restructuring GM and Chrysler.  He’s taking credit for it.

In the sense that he would not engage in Chicago-style cronyism, I think Romney would be better than Obama.  (There are a number of other ways in which Romney comes out on the long end of the personal- and professional-integrity comparison.)  But in terms of improper autonomy in the executive, and structural opportunities for cronyism, he would probably either set or confirm some very undesirable precedents while in office.  He needs an active, curmudgeonly Congress to thwart him, early and often.

The president is not the nation’s CEO-in-chief.  Regarding domestic policy, he should talk principle, not business-reorganization specifics.  I’d like to hear more from him on foreign and security policy; on domestic policy, it is far more important to be courageous about the principles of limited government than to be knowledgeable about reorganizing businesses.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

I think it would be safe to say for many on the right, including myself, this whole sideshow is exasperating. If the President is for gay marriage (who’s he kidding) then he should come out (no pun intended) and say so. However, that would be too easy. I see this whole charade playing out in one of several different ways.

1.) Obama is actually against gay marriage, but doesn’t want to tick off his Hollywood supporters and more importantly, he doesn’t want to lose their contributions. Those contributions matter, a lot. But who are we kidding, Obama’s for gay marriage. People actually opposed to gay marriage (like me) don’t say they are “evolving” on the issue.

2.) Obama WILL announce he is for gay marriage some time this year, but he wants to save it for a special occasion. I anticipate this occurs either a.) the day after the Republican National Convention to change the subject (the media will happily oblige) b.) during his speech at the Democratic National Convention (sets SOME sort of second term agenda) c.) during one of the debates (anything to change the subject and/or to catch Romney flat-footed. He’ll aim to have a “The American President” or “The West Wing” moment).

3.) Obama announces he’s for gay marriage after the election. He’ll have more “flexibility” and he won’t have to worry about the fallout from his fully evolved position.

4.) Obama doesn’t change his position at all, he continues with what he has been doing, never coming out in favor of gay marriage, but opposing any pro-traditional marriage initiatives that might come up.

I think 2 & 3 are the most likely. As we’ve seen, the President isn’t shy about trying to change the subject and if he thought that announcing his support of gay marriage would, on balance, help him one iota, he’d do it.

So what to do about it. Well, if I were the Romney campaign, I’d do two things. First, pressure Obama to come out and announce his support for gay marriage. Let everybody know that you’re not buying his faux opposition and that Obama should announce his support for gay marriage. If you put enough pressure on Obama and he is forced to announce his support in May or June and not in the fall, then one giant distraction goes away. Second, Romney should prebut the President on this issue. Like he tried to do in Charlotte in regards to jobs, do so again in regards to marriage. State your support for traditional marriage and attack Obama for his obfuscation. Turn a weakness of yours (lack of authenticity) and turn it around and make it a weakness of your opponent too.

Of course, anything can happen and I shouldn’t be arrogant enough to believe that a Presidential candidate would listen to me (I’d be flattered if he did though).

Btw: While I am opposed to gay marriage, I am under no illusion as to the current course of public opinion. I pretty much agree with this article by Rod Dreher in regards to social conservative opposition to gay marriage. However, sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting even if you end up losing.

P.S.- If you want a rational debate about gay marriage (i.e. Dan Savage isn’t within a 1000 miles of the event) check these out (that means you AP):

Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. Eric Smaw

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse vs. Christine Sun

[The Commander-in-Chief] presents his thanks in the most serious and affectionate manner to the General Officers, as well for their Counsel on many interesting occasions, as for their ardor in promoting the success of the plans he had adopted–To the Commandants of Regiments and Corps, and to the other Officers for their great Zeal and attention in carrying his orders promptly into execution–To the Staff for their alacrity and exactness in performing the duties of their several Departments–And to the Non-commissioned officers and private Soldiers, for their extraordinary patience in suffering, as well as their invincible fortitude in Action–To the various branches of the Army, the General takes this last and solemn oppertunity of professing his inviolable attachment & friendship–He wishes more than bare professions were in his power, that he was really able to be useful to them all in future life; He flatters himself however, they will do him the justice to believe, that whatever could with propriety be attempted by him, has been done. And being now to conclude these his last public Orders, to take his ultimate leave, in a short time, of the Military Character, and to bid a final adieu to the Armies he has so long had the honor to Command–he can only again offer in their behalf his recommendations to their grateful Country, and his prayers to the God of Armies. May ample justice be done them here, and may the choicest of Heaven’s favors both here and hereafter attend those, who under the divine auspices have secured innumerable blessings for others: With these Wishes, and this benediction, the Commander in Chief is about to retire from service–The Curtain of seperation will soon be drawn–and the Military Scene to him will be closed for ever.

George Washington’s farewell address to the Continental Army, 2 November 1783

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/revolution/farewell/index.html

Our citizen soldiers are unlike those drawn from the population of any other country. They are composed indiscriminately of all professions and pursuits–of farmers, lawyers, physicians, merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers–and this not only among the officers, but the private soldiers in the ranks. Our citizen soldiers are unlike those of any other country in other respects. They are armed, and have been accustomed from their youth up to handle and use firearms, and a large proportion of them, especially in the Western and more newly settled States, are expert marksmen. They are men who have a reputation to maintain at home by their good conduct in the field. They are intelligent, and there is an individuality of character which is found in the ranks of no other army. …

When all these facts are considered, it may cease to be a matter of so much amazement abroad how it happened that our noble Army in Mexico, regulars and volunteers, were victorious upon every battlefield, however fearful the odds against them. …

But our military strength does not consist alone in our capacity for extended and successful operations on land. The Navy is an important arm of the national defense. For the able and gallant services of the officers and men of the Navy, acting independently as well as in cooperation with our troops, in the conquest of the Californias, the capture of Vera Cruz, and the seizure and occupation of other important positions on the Gulf and Pacific coasts, the highest praise is due.

James K. Polk, message to Congress after the Mexican-American War, 5 December 1848

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29489&st=valor&st1=#ixzz1teRtvws6

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 19 November 1863

But it is not the physical scale and executive efficiency of preparation, supply, equipment and despatch that I would dwell upon, but the mettle and quality of the officers and men we sent over and of the sailors who kept the seas, and the spirit of the nation that stood behind them. No soldiers or sailors ever proved themselves more quickly ready for the test of battle or acquitted themselves with more splendid courage and achievement when put to the test. Those of us who played some part in directing the great processes by which the war was pushed irresistibly forward to the final triumph may now forget all that and delight our thoughts with the story of what our men did. Their officers understood the grim and exacting task they had undertaken and performed it with an audacity, efficiency, and unhesitating courage that touch the story of convoy and battle with imperishable distinction at every turn, whether the enterprise were great or small, from their great chiefs, Pershing and Sims, down to the youngest lieutenant; and their men were worthy of them,-such men as hardly need to be commanded, and go to their terrible adventure blithely and with the quick intelligence of those who know just what it is they would accomplish. I am proud to be the fellow-countryman of men of such stuff and valor. Those of us who stayed at home did our duty; the war could not have been won or the gallant men who fought it given their opportunity to win it otherwise; but for many a long day we shall think ourselves “accurs’d we were not there, and hold our manhoods cheap while any speaks that fought” with these at St. Mihiel or Thierry. The memory of those days of triumphant battle will go with these fortunate men to their graves; and each will have his favorite memory. “Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, but hell remember with advantages what feats he did that day!”

What we all thank God for with deepest gratitude is that our men went in force into the line of battle just at the critical moment when the whole fate of the world seemed to hang in the balance and threw their fresh strength into the ranks of freedom in time to turn the whole tide and sweep of the fateful struggle,-turn it once for all, so that thenceforth it was back, back, back for their enemies, always back, never again forward!

Woodrow Wilson, address to Congress after the end of World War I, 2 December 1918

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/130.html#ixzz1te1bNDCa

On this Army Day, freedom-loving men all over the world rise with us to salute our fighting men and devoted women of the Army. Our American soldier is respected everywhere for his courage, admired for his fighting skill, and loved for his charm and simplicity. Like his gallant brother in arms in the United States Navy, he is the symbol of our traditions and our hopes.

Our Army has written many glorious chapters in the Nation’s history, but none so brilliant as the last. Its story in this war has been written in every corner of the globe–on the continent of Europe; in the wastes of the Arctic; over the vast expanse of the Pacific; in jungle and desert; on mountains and over the beaches. It is a glorious history of men against the forces of nature as well as against the forces of evil.

Harry Truman, national address on Army Day, 6 April 1946

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12625#ixzz1te4pKjVQ

I can’t say enough in praise of our military – Army rangers and paratroopers, Navy, Marine, and Air Force personnel – those who planned a brilliant campaign and those who carried it out. Almost instantly, our military seized the two airports, secured the campus where most of our students were, and are now in the mopping-up phase. …

May I share something with you I think you’d like to know? It’s something that happened to the Commandant of our Marine Corps, General Paul Kelley, while he was visiting our critically injured Marines in an Air Force hospital. It says more than any of us could ever hope to say about the gallantry and heroism of these young men, young men who serve so willingly so that others might have a chance at peace and freedom in their own lives and in the life of their country.

I’ll let General Kelley’s words describe the incident. He spoke of a “young Marine with more tubes going in and out of his body than I have ever seen in one body.”

“He couldn’t see very well. He reached up and grabbed my four stars, just to make sure I was who I said I was. He held my hand with a firm grip. He was making signals, and we realized he wanted to tell me something. We put a pad of paper in his hand – and he wrote ‘Semper Fi.’ ”

Well, if you’ve been a Marine or if, like myself, you’re an admirer of the Marines, you know those words are a battle cry, a greeting, and a legend in the Marine Corps. They’re Marine shorthand for the motto of the Corps – “Semper Fidelis” – “always faithful.”

General Kelley has a reputation for being a very sophisticated general and a very tough Marine. But he cried when he saw those words, and who can blame him? That Marine and all those others like him living and dead, have been faithful to their ideals. They’ve given willingly of themselves so that a nearly defenseless people in a region of great strategic importance to the free world will have a chance someday to live lives free of murder and mayhem and terrorism. I think that young Marine and all of his comrades have given every one of us something to live up to.

They were not afraid to stand up for their country or, no matter how difficult and slow the journey might be, to give to others that last, best hope of a better future. We cannot and will not dishonor them now and the sacrifices they’ve made by failing to remain as faithful to the cause of freedom and the pursuit of peace as they have been.

Ronald Reagan, after the Grenada invasion, 27 October 1983

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/102783b.htm

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.”

I think I know what you may be thinking right now — thinking “we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.” Well, everyone was. …

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland’s 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England’s armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard’s “Matchbox Fleet” and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought — or felt in their hearts, though they couldn’t know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell

Ronald Reagan, address commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day, 6 June 1984

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/60684a.htm

We hear so often about our young people in turmoil—how our children fall short, how our schools fail us, how American products and American workers are second-class. Well, don’t you believe it. The America we saw in Desert Storm was first-class talent. And they did it using America’s state-of-the-art technology. We saw the excellence embodied in the Patriot missile and the patriots who made it work. And we saw soldiers who know about honor and bravery and duty and country and the world-shaking power of these simple words. There is something noble and majestic about the pride, about the patriotism that we feel tonight.

So, to everyone here and everyone watching at home, think about the men and women of Desert Storm. Let us honor them with our gratitude. Let us comfort the families of the fallen and remember each precious life lost.

Soon, very soon, our troops will begin the march we’ve all been waiting for—their march home. … Let their return remind us that all those who have gone before are linked with us in the long line of freedom’s march.

Americans have always tried to serve, to sacrifice nobly for what we believe to be right. Tonight, I ask every community in this country to make this coming Fourth of July a day of special celebration for our returning troops. They may have missed Thanksgiving and Christmas, but I can tell you this: For them and for their families, we can make this a holiday they’ll never forget.

In a very real sense, this victory belongs to them—to the privates and the pilots, to the sergeants and the supply officers, to the men and women in the machines and the men and women who made them work. It belongs to the regulars, to the reserves, to the National Guard. This victory belongs to the finest fighting force this nation has ever known in its history. We’re coming home now—proud, confident, heads high. There is much that we must do, at home and abroad. And we will do it. We are Americans.

George H.W. Bush, address to Congress after Desert Storm, 6 March 1991

http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3430

The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘em. …

We’ve come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

George W. Bush, address to the nation after the capture of Saddam Hussein, 14 December 2003

http://www.famous-speeches-and-speech-topics.info/famous-speeches/george-w-bush-speech-capture-of-saddam-hussein.htm

I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.

Barack Obama, on politicizing the May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden by the US Navy SEALs, 30 April 2012

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Obama-Denies-Politicizing-Bin-Laden-Raid-149677975.html

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Cross-posted at El Tercer Riel (The Third Rail).

Sixty-four years ago today(by the Hebrew calender) Israel declared her independence.  Israel’s independence would have been short lived were it not for the strong will of President Harry S Truman, who became the new Jewish State’s first international supporter, not because of any political stance, but because he thought it was the right thing to do.

When Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Isaac Herzog, visited the White House after Israel declared her independence he told Truman,

“God put you in your mother’s womb so that you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years.”

In a recent speech to AIPAC, President Obama said he had Israel’s back. It saddens me to say I cannot believe that statement.

Its hard to believe that Barack Obama would have made the same decision as Truman, if he was president 64-years-ago today.

Over the past three years he has tossed aside allies such as Great Britain, Honduras and Israel solely to score points with the socialist and Muslim parts of the world. Israel would have been cast aside in deference to the King of Saudi Arabia. He would have tried to negate the UN Partition Plan the same way he tried to pressure Honduras to ignore her constitution.

If, as the old saw goes, personnel is policy…then it is clear that the Obama machine (campaign and labor) has decided that its primary Hispanic outreach target is Central Florida.  Accordingly, they have dispatched their best general to the field.

On Monday, José Delgado (Washington D.C. correspondent for El Nuevo Día) published a piece which featured the Democrat Hispanic outreach key players in Central Florida (Google-translated version here).  I was familiar with some of the names cited (such as Franceschini, who has been active for years, and Acevedo, who is the public face of the Hispanic campaign in the I-4 corridor)…but one name, in particular, was not at all known to me (my translation):

“This is where the battle royal will be fought”, said labor leader José La Luz, whom the AFL-CIO has assigned to work on voter mobilization in Central Florida.

Since the name didn’t ring a bell, I started digging.  It turns out that La Luz is not only a labor legend, but a “proud socialist” with a track record and radical pedigree going all the way back to the ’70s.  Had he shifted to academia, as did many of the radicals of that time period, he’d undoubtedly be one of those “silver ponytails” that Andrew Breitbart alluded to at CPAC.  Instead, he stayed in the field and became a master organizer.

La Luz got his start as a member of the now-defunct Puerto Rican Socialist Party (which had extensive ties to the Castro regime, according to Congressional testimony), and was active in that party’s Connecticut branch.  By 1976, he rose to become a part of the PSP’s Central Committee, and attended the National Hard Times Conference (under the auspices of Prairie Fire and the Weather Underground).  Shortly thereafter, La Luz left the PSP and joined the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, where he became Chairman of its Hispanic Commission, prior to the merger that led to the formation of the Democratic Socialists of America.  After spending most of the ’90s in Chicago, La Luz officially retured to Puerto Rico as Executive Director of the local AFSCME branch, and successfully oversaw the multi-union organization of 150,000 government workers, and their (successful) campaign for collective bargaining rights.

Fast forward to 2007, and we begin to see how La Luz’ unique experience and skill sets come into play over the course of the past and current election cycles.  Shortly after that particular speech, La Luz (who was, at the time, director of the AFSCME Leadership Academy) became chairman of Latinos For Obama.  As such, La Luz worked in Colorado and New Mexico, driving registration, educating, and mobilizing voters until Election Day.  A month and half before the 2008 general election, he had this to say to People’s World Weekly:

“We are showing how the companies and outfits that exploit Latino workers are the people behind McCain,” said Laluz. Between now and Nov. 4, Laluz said the Obama campaign is registering voters in New Mexico and Colorado and developing lists of tens of thousands of Latino supporters for Obama. “Those lists will constitute the people we bring out on Election Day,” he said.

By now we know that the strategy clearly worked, given that Obama gained 67% of the Latino vote in 2008.  This strategy focused specifically on racial and economic grievances.

La Luz has remained active in the DSA, serving as vice-chair as recently as 2009, and adressing the DSA conventionin 2011 (watch the whole thing if you can spare the time, but if not, then definitely go to 24:11).  In particular, the calls for a tax increase pledge, and the Occupy Spring Offensive bring special insight into what we can expect to see in Central Florida.

If you read through the Nuevo Día piece, you’ll see that La Luz is savvy enough to recognize that the immigration argument might not play as well in Central Florida, but the other elements of the strategy would.

Given the importance of the Hispanic vote along the I-4 corridor, and its national repercussions (let there be no doubt that FL-9 is now the Mother Of All Bellwethers), there was always an expectation that the Institutional Left would go all out.  We also know that the muscle is never far from the smiling face, and the iron is fist never far from the velvet glove.

It is clear that Central Florida’s hispanic battleground (the most important in the nation) is a must-win for the regime, and it has sent its best general to the field.

Stuff just got real.

A Spanish-language version of this post is available at El Tercer Riel (The Third Rail).

I know the many wits and wags will do a *marvelous* job of coming up with a caption.

Have at it!

Per the Daily Caller:

The Blaze has screenshots from The Telegraph (UK) (nothing to see now!), the HuffPo (which leads to the main website, not the story), and Global Grind (which takes you to Google). The Tatler has even more instances of the disappeared story. Even the Freepers pulled the story.

Putting aside the State Department warnings to Americans planning to travel in Mexico, and the questions of whether a 13-yr old should be going on Spring Break without her parents, whether we the taxpayers should be paying for 40 people to go on that trip, or whatever else you want to gripe about, is the real issue, as Brian Doherty put it,

this unfolding incident…seems to indicate the White House can get a wide range of sites to take down stories, even if it is just with gentle persuasion or appeals to some higher standard. And that is highly unnerving.

Meanwhile, the Mexicans are coping with cars exploding in front of newspaper offices in Tamaulipas (a state on the US-Mex border) in the north, and 12 policemen ambushed and killed when investigating the beheadings of 12 people in Guerrero, in the south.

Makes you wonder why Malia and her friends couldn’t be told to go to Fort Lauderdale like everybody else.

UPDATE:
Strong, long quake shakes Mexico City

A strong, long earthquake with an epicenter in Guerrero state shook central southern Mexico today, swaying buildings in Mexico City and sending frightened workers and residents into the streets.

The U.S. Geological Survey initially set the intensity at 7.9 and said the epicenter was 11 miles underground. Mexico’s National Seismological Survey said the temblor had an epicenter southwest of Ometepec.

If Malia’s party is not out of Mexico yet, us taxpayers will also be paying extra for the emergency evacuation.

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog.

Ed did an excellent job breaking down the few actual differences between Obama’s new defense-resources EO and the previous version from 1994.  Here are the two main differences:

1.  The Obama EO elaborates vague-sounding functions for federal agencies in maintaining defense-resources preparedness (Section 103).  Ed summarizes them as follows:

Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation.

2.  The Obama EO delegates authorities under Section 308 to agency heads.  The Section 308 authorities include putting additional equipment in public and private defense industrial facilities, and modifying or expanding private facilities, including modifying or “improving” industrial processes.

Any time I see the Obama administration and “modifying private industry” in the same zip code, I get curious about who’s cooking up ways to spend taxpayer money on uneconomic ventures.  We’ve had that whole thing with the green-tech companies making out like bandits from Obama administration crony projects – while failing, destroying unused parts, and charging the military four times the cost of regular fuel – so it’s not like there’s no precedent for the concept.

And it turns out that Obama’s new EO did not emerge from out of nowhere in this regard.  The Department of Energy has become notorious for its funding awards to Obama cronies, but there has been much less of that unpleasant publicity about the Department of Defense.  Where Obama has proposed increasing defense expenditures, however, is in public-private partnerships to develop “advanced manufacturing” technologies for the defense industry.  A whole infrastructure of initiatives and organizations has been set up to bring the idea to fruition.  And a key due-out in each case will be DOD money going to businesses.

As Ed and others pointed out this weekend, there is nothing new about federal provisions to manage and ensure “defense resources.”  The Obama administration has set up some new organizations, but it has relied on the authority from previous legislation (principally the Defense Production Act of 1950, or DPA) to scope its overarching concept.  Readers should also keep in mind that the idea of government stepping in and modifying defense businesses has been enshrined in US law for decades.  (The previous understanding has been that these measures would be reserved almost entirely for war or national emergency.)   The Obama administration is merely putting its unique stamp on the concept.

There’s a big cast of characters.  Besides reorganizing the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), an entity that has existed under different names for most of the last 80 years, the Obama administration launched its Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) in June 2011.  The AMP will hand out money, but will also identify projects for the federal departments to hand out money to.

In 2011, the administration created a new Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (MIBP).  ASD/MIBP is not a Senate-confirmed official,   but he manages the DPA Fund; i.e., money.  (A GAO report in 2008 summarized the somewhat chaotic approach to funding DPA projects under Title III; the Obama administration’s approach has emphasized wrestling some of that chaos down, to put a more Obamist face on the priorities.)

Obama also established an interagency Defense Production Act Committee, which, although derived from the authorities conferred by the DPA of 1950, had not been constituted prior to 2009.  DPAC’s charter:

[DPAC] serves as a multi-departmental forum to identify risks and shortfalls in the industrial base and make recommendation on actions to rectify them, including the use of DPA Title III authorities.

(Title III authorities are summarized here as a “set of unique economic authorities to incentivize the creation, expansion or preservation of domestic manufacturing capabilities for technologies, components and materials needed to meet national defense requirements.” Read, in large part: money.) 

The Obama administration also published very quickly – in March 2009 – a new strategic plan for the DOD Manufacturing Technology Program, another federal program dating to the 1950s, and one that – you guessed it – disburses money.  But note: the specific requirement for the strategic plan came from the Defense Authorization Act in the final year of the Bush administration.  As is often the case, the Obama administration doesn’t have to think up new programs, requirements, or authorities; it simply leverages the existing, cumulative infrastructure.

That appears to be what is going on with a concatenation of programmatic efforts that we may call the “defense advanced manufacturing nexus,” or DAMN.  The central document in the nexus is the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing, published – pay attention here – in February 2012.  This is another in that ever-lengthening list of things you probably didn’t know we had.  This strategic plan was developed by the Interagency Working Group on Advanced Manufacturing (IAM, and how’s that for an acronym), in response to Section 102 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

The strategic plan is about federal investment (“greater public co-investment”) – that is, in plain speak, “giving money” to folks.  The priority for expenditures is explained as follows:

[P]rivate investment in advanced manufacturing capabilities may not occur domestically unless the public sector makes strategic investments to address market failures in stages of the innovation process downstream from basic research.

So the strategic plan is to invest taxpayer money in market failures.  And it all comes together on pages 30-31 of this document, where we see the Defense Production Act Committee and the DOD Manufacturing Technology Program called out specifically as vehicles for implementing the strategic plan.  DARPA is explicitly invoked as well.

Acronym overload is an issue here, so let’s just state the proposition one more time.  The Obama strategic plan for advanced manufacturing is to invest public money in technologies that are vulnerable to (or are already) market failures, with a focus on defense manufacturing.  The vague-sounding functions assigned to federal agencies in Obama’s new defense-resources EO – identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation – mirror quite exactly the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing and the DOD Manufacturing Technology Strategic Plan.

In light of this comprehensive, money-intensive plan, the delegation of authority to agency heads – for adding to, modifying, and improving the industrial base – takes on an interesting hue.  The first thing that occurs to me is the Obama administration’s well-known reliance on “stealth” implementation of controversial or unpopular measures, through the unheralded actions of federal agencies.  Charles Krauthammer outlined several such actions in December 2010; readers can no doubt think of numerous others.

How would this matter to the defense industrial infrastructure?  One obvious way is the potential for agencies to quietly circumvent the intentions of Congress, which are a longstanding source of friction for presidential defense priorities.  The Senate, in particular, is the center of excellence for political horse-trading over national priorities for the defense industry.  If it’s manufactured for defense, or if it’s a defense service, there’s a senator for that:  the Senate’s slugfests over which states get the biggest or next or “fair share” piece of the defense-industry pie are as unseemly and ridiculous and necessary as anything in consensual republican government.

But there is a subtler issue as well.  The defense industry and its advocates have been complaining in the last couple of years about irreparable losses in the defense industrial infrastructure due to spending cuts.  (See here and here as well.)   There need be no “conspiracy theories” for us to recognize that as spending is cut further and further, some elements of the base will die on the vine, and what the federal government does spend defense money on is what will determine the shape of the future defense industrial base.

I am profoundly uneasy about the priorities of the Obama Defense Department in general – and I am made more so by the achievements in innovation touted by defense-funded enterprises like the $16-a-gallon marine biofuel, the contract to apply grid efficiency technology to DOD energy use, and DARPA’s partnership with start-up Local Motors to develop the first Experimental Crowd-Derived Combat-Support Vehicle (XC2V).  The last sounds like one heck of a lot of fun, but forcing money into this kind of idea while declining to fund basic weapon systems will transform the defense industrial base in a way no one would buy into up front.

The new Obama EO on defense resources comes out of an accelerating, months-long effort to harness the defense budget for favored kinds of spending.  This will no doubt be depicted as, precisely, “national defense resources preparedness.”  And it’s already underway.  In addition to the various direct-purchase or sponsorship projects with defense funding, the Army and Navy are just (literally, just) opening new research laboratories, which the US is apparently able to fund in spite of needing to cut funds for the high-performing RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, the F-35 multi-service strike-fighter, US bases in Europe, and 80,000 Army soldiers.

For perspective, it is important to recognize that all presidential administrations seek to put their stamp on defense policies.  There is nothing nefarious about doing that.  What’s worth noting about the Obama administration is that its clearest public posture on defense is that defense spending has to be cut, no matter how painful the losses in military capability.  In the esoteric realm of “national investment in infrastructure,” however – where money goes, as with the “Stimulus” package, to cronies – the administration has lifted out a segment of defense-related spending for special funding.  It defines this segment in the terms of its “investment” plan for “advanced manufacturing,” in a manner similar to its enthusiasm for defense “investment” in “green technologies.”

And now it has modified the EO on National Defense Resources Preparedness along lines that are clearly relevant to implementing the plan for advanced manufacturing.  A whole slew of websites went to high warble over the revised EO on the theory that it was intended to facilitate martial law, and I agree with Ed that that looks like a silly overreaction.  But the important point is that it’s misdirected.  I don’t think the EO or its timing is meaningless, or merely routine.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

…Theft of Tide detergent has become so rampant that some cities are setting up special task forces to stop it and retailers like CVS are taking special security precautions to lock down the liquid.

…Tide has become a form of currency on the streets. The retail price is steadily high — roughly $10 to $20 a bottle — and it’s a staple in households across socioeconomic classes.

Tide can go for $5 to $10 a bottle on the black market, authorities say, and some thieves even resell it to stores.

“There’s no serial numbers and it’s impossible to track,” said Detective Larry Patterson of the Somerset, Ky., Police Department, where authorities have seen a huge spike in Tide theft. “It’s the item to steal.”

To paraphrase Mark Steyn, when laundry detergent becomes a de facto currency, you’re pretty much done for.

You feeling stimulated yet?

Hat tip: BadBlue.

I interviewed Sheriff Joe to find out.

Yesterday, the Drudge Report posted a World Net Daily article that celebrated the fact that even mainstream media outlets like ABC and NBC were requesting credentials to the press conference.

“The event is tomorrow at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time in Phoenix, 3 p.m. Eastern, and will be live-streamed by WND.

The topic of discussion will be an investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into concerns about Obama’s eligibility. It’s the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

The issues include Obama’s eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number and the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii.”

World Net Daily has recently come under fire by the Huffington Post, who, in its best copy and paste fashion, accused the Sheriff Joe of being “bribed.”

Huffington Post:

“That cozy relationship defines Corsi and WND’s coverage of Arpaio and the investigation. It has been so fawning and biased that it appears to be an effort to guarantee that the probe generates a result favorable to Corsi and unfavorable to Obama — in other words, a form of bribery. On top of that, Corsi is violating journalistic ethics by playing both sides of the fence — writing about an investigation he not only instigated but participated in.”

While most of the Huffington Post claims are unsubstantiated, some people may have legitimate concerns about the scope and quality of the investigation. To address those concerns, WND has offered free copies of the report.

“In addition to the live-streaming, WND will make available to the public, the same day by email, the official report distributed to media by Arpaio’s investigators. Those interested in receiving the report can sign up for the free service.

Top national media organizations have indicated their plans to attend, and bookings for radio and television reports are in the works. Expected are reporters from the Associated Press, Reuters, Univision, the Washington Times and NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates, as well statewide radio networks, among many others.

When reached by me by phone this evening in Arizona, Sheriff Joe spoke of his reasons for the investigation. An elected official with over 20 years in law enforcement, Sheriff Joe told me that it was an independent, fair and non-politically motivated attempt to have qualified individuals examine the evidence.

In response to a request from over 250 tea party members in Arizona,Arpaio formed a five man “posse” Arpaio called his all-volunteer group the Cold Case Posse and the posse acted independently of the Sheriff office. “Since they were independent, I can fully guarantee that no tax dollars where used to fund this investigation,” Sheriff Joe stated.

A quick Wikipedia search yields that the use of a “posse” is not new in Arizona.

Building upon Maricopa County’s 50-year-old program, Arpaio expanded the all-volunteer citizen posse through heavy recruiting. The volunteers perform many duties for the sheriff’s office:

• Search and rescue
• Emergency communications
• Prisoner transport
• Traffic control
• Backup for sworn deputies
• Office administrative duties
• Holiday Mall Patrol (which provides motorist assistance and security for shoppers during the holiday shopping season)
• Deadbeat parent details targeting men and women with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to pay child support
• Assisting in immigration sweeps

The timing of the press conference has raised a number of eyebrows as Arpaio faces increasing pressure from a years long investigation by the Department of Justice.  An email sent out by  a group called Grassfire Nation reports that over 100,000 petitions were delivered to the DOJ by Arpaio supporters and informed members of attempts by the DOJ to have Arpaio put a stop to those petitions.

Though Arpaio gave few details of today’s announcement, he spoke confidently about the members of his posse which include three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys. According to a number of sources, today’s announcement will lead to some serious questions that will demand answers.

Sheriff Joe puts it bluntly:

“There is new evidence that can prove fraud, forgery and other criminal offenses, I am not accusing the President of committing such acts but these are not just allegations. There are a lot of smoke screens and a lot of smoke. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”

No double standards here, folks.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been paying a defense contractor $11.4 million to monitor social media websites and other Internet communications to find criticisms of the department’s policies and actions.

A government watchdog organization, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), obtained hundreds of documents from DHS through the Freedom of Information Act and found details of the arrangement with General Dynamics. The company was contracted to monitor the Web for “reports that reflect adversely on DHS,” including sub-agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Ginger McCall, director of EPIC’s Open Government Project, stated that “the agency is monitoring constantly, under very broad search terms, and is not limiting that monitoring to events or activities related to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or manmade disasters…. The DHS has no legal authority to engage in this monitoring.”

McCall added: “This has a profound effect on free speech online if you feel like a government law enforcement agency—particularly the Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to look for terrorists—is monitoring your criticism, your dissent, of the government.”

Rest assured that our beloved, baritone DHS secretary — and her ostensible boss, Eric “Fast ‘n’ Furious” Holder — would never, ever use this kind of information to go after private citizens. They’re just doing research.

As far as you know.

Consider this reason number 43,263 to kick this administration’s ample rear out of office in November.

 
Hat tip: BadBlue.com.

Official: US seeks end to Egypt NGO case in days

By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

RABAT, Morocco (AP) — A senior U.S. official says the Obama administration is in “intense discussions” with Egypt to resolve the legal case against 16 American democracy advocates that has badly damaged ties between the countries “in the coming days”

The official, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity due to the delicacy of the matter, said Saturday that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had raised the matter twice in person with Egypt’s foreign minister – once in London and once in Tunis – in the past three days and that other senior U.S. officials are actively involved.

The administration has been calling for the case to be resolved for weeks in a manner that allows seven of the implicated Americans who have been barred from leaving to leave the country.

Please note that the words “hostages”, “crisis”, “Carter”, and “SCOAMF” were carefully omitted from the AP’s crack reportage.

Which is why Americans regard the Associated Press with roughly the same level of disdain as they had for Pravda during the Nikita Khrushchev era.

Hat tips: BadBlue.com. Image: via Asian Conservatives.

Were there any other possible solutions which provided contraception at no cost to the user but did not infringe on our religious liberty? Yes. Obama could have decreed that women could get contraception at no cost to themselves

1. from a federal program:
   Expand HHS or some other department to create a contraception-only insurance program that all women can enroll in.  Pharmacies would dispense the medication and bill the government for reimbursement just as they would any insurer. If Obama is determined to create a new “right” to no-cost contraception, this is probably the least intrusive option.  And from the statist point of view, this is an especially good option, because such a program could easily be expanded to increasingly cover women’s health services and push people further into a single payer system.
2. from the doctor’s office:
   Pharmaceutical companies already keep doctor’s offices stocked with free samples. Obama could have required pharmaceutical companies to extend that system, which is already in place, so that doctor’s offices can dispense all the hormonal contraception methods (oral contraceptives, the patch, shot/injection, vaginal ring, implantable rods) directly to their patients, the same way that Planned Parenthood does. The government could reimburse the pharmaceutical companies directly or give them a tax break. Doctor’s offices could also be reimbursed by the government for any expenses involved for dispensing medication or for non-hormonal methods like IUDs or sterilization.  Pharmaceutical companies and doctors are already heavily regulated and micromanaged by the government, so while this plan adds to their burden, it at least doesn’t break new ground.
3. from an expanded Medicaid program:
   Expand Medicaid enrollment to cover contraceptive services for all women.  This is essentially the same as the first option, but managed by the states instead of the federal government.

None of these solutions are perfect, but they don’t infringe our religious freedom at all.  Given that there were other methods available for Obama to try to buy women’s votes with “free” contraception, it’s interesting that Obama chose the one which essentially declared war on churches.

He made his course clear back in 2008, when he said,

Any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion. And this goes for both sides. Even those who claim the bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the ten commandments, say, or the belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to the Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.  And the American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control, and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it.  Religious leadership needs to understand they don’t have to accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

In other words, churches are free to have any doctrine they like, but they should not expect the government to permit them to act on their beliefs.  He’s demanding that churches “dumb down” their doctrine to accommodate believers, rather than continue to present high standards for believers to live up to.

He also made his plans clear by appointing Chai Feldblum to head the EEOC.  She admitted that when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

It’s abundantly clear that this is no political miscalculation. It seems that forcing churches to either comply with liberal political goals or get out of the public square was always his plan. Rahm Emmanuel said that ”You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”  Since there is no contraception crisis, Obama is creating one.

Twitter: @Laura_PH
Crossposted.  

Rather, that was one of the very reasons for enacting ObamaCare in the first place.

As many of us said back in 2009, the purpose of ObamaCare was never to give health insurance to needy people who couldn’t afford it. First, that category was nearly empty:

• The deserving poor were already covered by Medicaid; and if necessary, its qualification threshold could have been temporarily lowered to allow more people to benefit — say, by expanding availability to those who had recently lost their jobs (hence health insurance) but were not yet living below the Medicaid poverty line.

• The biggest chunk of those who did not have health insurance comprised the rich (who prefer to pay for their health care as necessary, rather than buy insurance), and the young, healthy, and shortsighted, who can afford health care but choose instead to gamble that they won’t get so sick or injured that they need expensive treatment. Making such a choice, even if it turns out to be a big mistake, is part of individual liberty. The proper “solution” is to allow us that liberty, then hold individuals accountable for their own decisions; actions have consequences. (Innocents swept up in those bad decisions, such as children, can be helped separately.)

• Finally, a small percentage of the uninsured could have afforded a cheaper, stripped-down policy, but cannot afford the “Cadillac” health-care plans whose costs are driven up by government mandates and regulations.

  For those unfortunates, the easiest fix — which would have benefitted everyone else as well — was to eliminate all the government meddling the caused the problem in the first place: Requiring health insurance by law to cover a littany of specialized services; policies that make it difficult for insurance companies to offer greater variety in policies, such as a medical savings account coupled with catastrophic care (which encourage more parsimony among patients, as they must pay to refill their MSA if depleted); regulations prohibiting insurance companies from offering policies cross-state and cross-border; overly plaintiff-friendly (and especially lawyer-friendly) medical malpractice laws; and so forth.

Real problems, such as people with pre-existing conditions (the faux “casus belli” for the war against private insurance), could have been handled the same way bad drivers are handled for automobile insurance: Create an “assigned risk” pool among health insurers to spread the cost; allow a reasonable increase in rates for those with such conditions, and have a reasonably short waiting period (e.g., six months) before full coverage occurs; and allow for temporary government assistance for those who truly cannot wait and incur unpayable costs. (This isn’t laissez-faire Capitalism, of course; but it’s a reasonable and inexpensive compromise between liberty and safety net.)

Such reforms would have cost a fraction of the trillion dollars that ObamaCare expropriated from the private sector. In fact, once the lifting of government mandates and the squelching of “jackpot justice” malpractice suits lowered actual health-care costs, insurance reform might have wound up cheaper than the original system it replaced. And in any event, it would have been a move towards greater freedom of choice for employers and individuals.

But the Obamunists had precisely the opposite purpose from the beginning; rather than freedom, their ultimate goal was to put more Americans than ever before under the iron boot-heel of the government. Never was it about health insurance for the poor and uninsured; it was always about the federal government seizing control not only of the health care of individuals but also nationalizing those state and local health programs already in place. ObamaCare was, first and last, a power grab by the federal government at the expense of states, local governments, and individual Americans.

So please, let’s not imitate Captain Renault in Casablanca — shocked, shocked to discover that Barack Obama has violated our First-Amendment right to freedom of religion! In fact, that specific mandate was at the heart of ObamaCare tyranny: a frontal assault on the Catholic church in particular, which is so virulently hated by the gay-activist and feminist wings of the Left.

The only element of this policy that should shock anyone is the unbelievably hamfisted way that Obama decreed it: A politically savvy politician would have patiently held off until after the election, giving himself two years to allow the furor to die down.

Instead, the president once again mistook unanimity among his left-liberal friends for a Progressivist “consensus” among the American people; he lives in a bubble of epistemic closure, talking only to true-blue believers on the left. I formerly gave him the nickname “Lucky Lefty,” because (a) he is left handed, (b) he is left-leaning, and (c) he was extraordinarily lucky. Well he’s still (a) and (b), but not so much (c) anymore, so I can no longer call him that.

Obama’s new nickname is “Bubble Boy,” honoring his world view.

But what’s done is done and cannot be undone; Obama has ripped off the mask, and he can’t put it back into the bottle. We now see ObamaCare in all its naked savagery and unAmericanism. Thank goodness for Obamunist “dumbth!”

Cross-posted on Big Lizards…

The US and EU backed an Arab League plan to transition Syria from the Assad regime to a new, popularly elected government.  The plan was proposed for UN endorsement, so that its execution would have the imprimatur of the UN and the implied weight of international approval.  The Obama administration made execution of this plan, through the UN, the focus of US policy on Syria, as did the EU and its major member states.

They brought the question to a vote in spite of the fact that the positions of Russia and China on intervening in Syria have been unchanged for months.  It was predictable that Russia and China would veto the resolution.  Indeed, it was a grave tactical error to force the confrontation.  Russia’s and China’s greatest concerns have not changed, and instead of addressing them, the Atlantic members of the Perm-5 forced a vote.

This was a confrontation that did not have to happen.  Russia’s and China’s concerns have sound elements.  Consider the issue in this light: do we really want to set a precedent in which the UN gives its stamp of approval to regime-change proposals from the Arab League?  Should the UN act as a fulcrum for regime change in this manner?  If we allow it to, what will that mean for the future?  For whom else will the UN endorse third-party plans for regime change?

The precedent in principle is one of the great problems here, and Russian and Chinese comments on the issue have consistently centered on it.  Remember that the UN did not give its stamp of approval to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which had as its objective regime-changing Saddam Hussein.  I never considered that a problem, and indeed was glad that a faulty precedent was not set then.

In 2011, the UN declined to endorse any regime-change proposal for Libya.  In approving the use of force against the Qadhafi regime, the UN’s narrow justification was protection of civilians.  That principle was strategically and operationally unsound, to be sure, but by invoking it, the US delegation and the UN avoided pushing for the bad precedent we have just demanded a vote on: having the UN endorse third-party proposals for regime change.

Frankly, Russia and China have good grounds for rejecting that proposal.  It is not safe, for any nation, for the UN to be a source of such endorsements.  The character of the UN is well known; it cannot be trusted with such a portfolio.  Neither the United States nor any nation in Europe is naturally immune to attack by this method – but the Obama administration and the EU continue to behave as if we are.

Besides the flawed principle, Russia is of course concerned about her client, Bashar al-Assad, being removed by outside agency.  But her greater concern is who the remover would be.  Russia cannot tolerate giving a Western-backed Arab League the lead in picking a new leadership for Syria – any more than Russia thought it was a good idea for Turkey’s Erdogan to pick Syria’s new leadership.  The reason is a combination of factors:  Moscow fears political-power wins for the Islamic world in the context of a fading, incoherent American power – and the peril is doubled by the fact that it’s the West actively bolstering the Arab-Muslim bloc as a regional power broker.

From the Russian perspective, this Western move is either diabolical – a means of raiding Russia’s client base without confronting Moscow directly – or colossally stupid.  China, under perceived pressure from American activism in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, also sees the move as opening doors that should be held closed: doors that will usher in new stability problems on China’s western flank.

We should be clear that Russia and China are both happy to have their own special relationships with the Arab League, and with Arab or other Muslim Middle Eastern nations individually.  They understand this as pragmatism, and have no illusions about what it means in terms of amity, goodwill, or commonality of philosophical interests.  The problem, from their perspective, is the West giving a boost on principle to a bloc that is hostile, unreliable, and potentially very exploitable by newly-empowered radical Islamists, as the “Arab Spring” spins off its thunderstorms and tornadoes.  Either the Westerners are ideological dupes, or they are playing a very deep power game.  With their passive-aggressive approach, the US and EU have chosen the path most likely to shift power relationships in negative, uncontrollable directions for everyone in Asia and much of Europe and Africa.

By operating on a set of unrealistic ideological precepts, the Obama administration has made it impossible for Russia and China to tacitly accept US leadership and extract from it the benefits they can.  The vetoes they exercised in Saturday’s vote have launched a new period in which they will make fewer and fewer bones about repudiating US leadership and pushing for alternative arrangements.

 As for Syria, France has already announced that she is pushing, in the absence of a UN resolution, for a coalition approach (emphasis added):

President Nicolas Sarkozy said France would work with its European and Arab partners to create what he called a “group of friends of the Syrian people” to apply international backing to the Arab League’s call for President Bashar al-Assad to step aside, the withdrawal of troops and a transition to democracy.

Apparently, Sarkozy is willing to dispense with American “leadership from behind,” and find a solution for Syria without the United States.  France’s approach is commonsensical and realistic, and that could be a net positive for Syria and the region.  But Russia and China have their own diplomatic channels and proposals in Syria; it is not a given that France’s initiative is the one that will carry the day.  In any case, the outcome could very well be worked out without any real input from US power.

Don’t be too quick to say, “Good riddance; France or Russia should be handling it anyway.”  If our power is so valueless that it can be dispensed with in the Eastern hemisphere, there is nothing that will prevent that region’s security problems from rapidly becoming ours.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-I’m Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

And this?

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Mr. Obama was saying that while he was drastically slowing down leasing and permitting in the US and whining about “subsides” to US oil corporations. We apparently can subsidize government controlled oil companies in foreign countries, but not here (and I’m not arguing for subsidies here – just pointing out the usual Obama contradiction – kind of like he’s against bailouts, except for Chrysler, GM, Solyndra, etc.)

Well, that little jump-start of ObamaDollars has indeed helped “develop these oil reserves”. And the beneficiary?

Off the coast of Rio de Janeiro — below a mile of water and two miles of shifting rock, sand and salt — is an ultradeep sea of oil that could turn Brazil into the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The country’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country’s oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for export markets.

The United States wants it, but China is getting it.

Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

Well done, Mr. Obama.

[HT: Red Country]

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

The administration appears to be doing what it thinks will avert one.  Military force is playing a quiet and relatively minor role.  There has been more “messaging” about force in the last few weeks than actual force activity.  The administration is also trying to discourage Israel from mounting an independent strike on Iran, by frequently advertising US concerns about that possibility.  Presumably the White House knows that this particular messaging campaign serves to keep Iran alerted.  Ultimately, there is more talk than anything else.  Military preparations, such as they are, are defensive in nature.  That includes the acceleration of missile-defense sales to the Persian Gulf nations.

Consider last week’s disclosures about the number of US troops in Kuwait and the announcement that a “second” carrier strike group had arrived in the Central Command (CENTCOM) theater.  News outlets across the nation reported these bits of information as evidence that the US is “boosting” our military presence in the Persian Gulf.  The direct implication is that we are doing this not only because of the Iranian threat but because of a concern in the White House that Israel will conduct a strike on her own (which would produce a backlash from Iran).

But we are not “boosting” our troop presence in the Gulf.  We decided last year to keep some of the troops coming out of Iraq in Kuwait, as a ready force to deal with contingencies.  As far as I can tell, the US administration has not explicitly implied in the last few days that the troops were “dispatched” to Kuwait, as if they had just recently deployed from North America.  But numerous news outlets are reporting the developments in exactly those terms.

The force of about 15,000 includes two Army brigade combat teams (BCTs) and a combat air (helicopter) brigade, all of which deployed in 2011 prior to the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq.  We haven’t “boosted” our ground-force presence in the Persian Gulf; we have drawn it down a little less than originally advertised.  The forces in Kuwait are insufficient to mount an attack with; they might be used instead to help defend Gulf nations if Iran retaliated against sanctions or other Western actions with regional attacks.  (The original premise was being able to go back into Iraq for security operations.)

The carrier strike group situation, meanwhile, will prove out in the coming days; we may have decided to keep two strike groups on station instead of one.  One of two carriers that are currently outside the Persian Gulf – USS John C Stennis (CVN-74), which has been on station and is due to go home to the West coast, and USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), which has just arrived from San Diego – will probably leave shortly.  A third carrier strike group, that of USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), is reportedly headed for the theater from its last port visit in Thailand, which may mean that two carriers will be within a 1-3 day transit of the Persian Gulf, even if both are not operating there continuously.

It has been far from unusual to have two carriers in CENTCOM over the past decade.  Even Pat Buchanan seems to have given up thinking it’s a harbinger of an ill-advised attack on Iran.  Two carriers are, in fact, insufficient to launch a deliberate attack on Iran – like the ground forces being retained in Kuwait.  The presence of two carriers in the theater for an extended period is evidence of a marginally heightened defensive profile.   (It also gives the president the flexibility to send one on a dash to the Eastern Mediterranean if necessary, while keeping one on station in Southwest Asia.)  The two carriers are not a signal that we are going on offense.

Notably, if we did need to apply significant force in the Eastern Med, we’d have to send assets there.  The Russians have the only aircraft carrier task force deployed in EASTMED. The US has not maintained a robust carrier presence in the Med for some years now.  (Interestingly, Britain and France are planning to jointly deploy a large naval force – including aircraft carriers – to the Med later this year.)

Meanwhile, another media narrative, about the US sending a signal of support to Israel (and pressure against Iran) at a crucial time, has just fallen apart.

The US and Israel were set to hold exercise Austere Challenge 2012 in May, followed by Exercise Juniper Cobra 2012, a missile/air-defense exercise that would place the Theater High-Altitude Defense (THAAD) system in a “defense against Iranian missiles” scenario.

The Juniper Cobra series started in 2001, and in 2009 brought the THAAD system into Israel also.  Austere Challenge is a US European Command (EUCOM) exercise series in which the command headquarters practices operating as a joint task force HQ, commanding participants among the US forces stationed or deployed in the EUCOM theater.  US reserve forces regularly deploy to Europe for the exercise, and in 2011, the US Sixth Fleet flagship, USS Mount Whitney, participated as a HQ afloat, concluding the exercise with a port visit in Haifa.

The US and Israel were planning a large-scale combination of these exercises in April-May 2012.  But reporting in the last 24 hours indicates that the exercises will not take place then.  Turkish press, quoting Israeli reporting, says that the exercises have been postponed until later in the year.  But the most recent Israeli reporting suggests the exercises have been cancelled (with budget concerns cited as the reason).

Postponement – probably to an as-yet unspecified date – is more likely.  The US gets as much out of these exercises as Israel, and has been focusing on Juniper Cobra 2012 for validating missile-defense systems and operational concepts that cannot be effectively exercised elsewhere.   (UPDATE:  the latest from the Jerusalem Post confirms that the exercises will be held later in 2012.)

But the political signal is the opposite of the one originally talked up in the infosphere.  Rather than intending to send a signal about US support for Israel, one that would put pressure on Iran, the administration is, at the very least, not concerned that canceling or delaying the exercises will inevitably send a very different signal.

I’m sure the Obama administration would characterize its political posture as one of concern that holding these exercises on schedule would be seen as provocative in an already unsettled situation.  The unspoken premise is, of course, that demonstrating US-Israeli collaboration in missile defense and military operations is provocative.

And from the perspective of Tehran, and no doubt Damascus, it presumably is.  Well-intentioned people can argue honestly over whether it is a good idea to let policy decisions be governed by what our opponents consider provocative.  “Provocative” is always the flip side of “deterrent”; the question is whether, in a given situation, one thinks like a global leader determined to deter, or like a nation that hopes to avoid the need for exertion.

Regardless, it cannot be argued that the Obama posture is anything other than defensive.  Equally defensive is the administration’s emphasis on supplying Gulf nations with air- and missile-defense systems.  These systems are of obvious interest to Iran’s neighbors, but they cannot prevent Iran from launching attacks – of any kind.  They are purely passive, entailing no preemption or active deterrence.

It has been a mistake at every turn to look for evidence of the conventional use of US power in the actions of the Obama administration.  The operations in Libya demonstrated clearly that Team Obama is determined not to use US military power to secure transformative outcomes rapidly.  Obama is prepared to let conflicts continue as long as they must in order that the outcomes be achieved by other means.  His solicitude for missile defenses in the Gulf and in Israel is a signal that he expects to approach Iran on defense.  Our overall military posture in the Gulf simply reinforces that approach.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Initial jobless claims unexpectedly jumped by 24,000 last week to 399,000 as more workers lost their jobs, the Labor Department said Thursday. At the same time, the economy continues to lose workers.

In the 30 months since the recession officially ended, nearly 1 million people have dropped out of the labor force — they aren’t working, and they aren’t looking — according to data from Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the past two months, the labor force shrank by 170,000.

This is virtually unprecedented in past economic recoveries, at least since the BLS has kept detailed records. In the past nine recoveries, the labor force had climbed an average 3.5 million by this point, according to an IBD analysis of the BLS data.

…According to the BLS, the “labor force participation rate” — the ratio of the number of people either working or looking for work compared with the entire working-age population — is now 64%, down from 65.7% when the recession ended in June 2009. That’s the lowest level since women began entering the workforce in far greater numbers several decades ago.

If you adjust for this drop, the unemployment rate would be close to 11%, instead of the official 8.5%.

At this rate, the completely politicized Bureau of Labor Statistics should just remove several million more workers from the labor force, so they can get the unemployment rate down to, say, 4.8%. Like it was during those nightmarish Bush years.

 
Related: Obama Labor Politburo Now Publishing Patently Bogus Unemployment Propaganda.

Romney, the son of a politician, has been running for office, holding office or thinking about running for office for more than two decades. “Just level with the American people,” Gingrich growled. “You’ve been running … at least since the 1990s.”

For some reason, Romney can’t do that. Or at least it seems like he can’t. His authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away. And it’s sapping enthusiasm from the rank and file.

Goldberg is right, but the underlying theme that voters need to be reminded of is that during so many important debates fromhealthcare, jobs, Wall Street Reform, confirmations, recess appointments, to taxes the culprits to invoke cloture or side with the Democrats typically are the same:  Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe,  and Scott Brown–the trifecta of RINOs. All from the northeast, too.  See where I’m going with this?

Frankly, Romney, who the mainstream liberal media would like to see win the nomination, has yet to unite the GOP base.  His used car salesman pitch simply rubs people the wrong way.  We’ve seen this over and over again–even John McCain pointed this out and won in 2007′s primary–and now supports him–that should speak volumes to my point.  Romney has always been dogged by this and this is why we have such a large ‘Not Romney’ camp on the right side of the aisle.

The GOP is also paying the bitter price for not having anyone in line to succeed GW Bush.  The party’s internal tug of war will be an historical teachable moment and prepare the party for future elections.  The one saving grace is that, while the Democrats have Hillary, they have no one to succeed her at this point in time.  I say Hillary because she seems to be the only power broker left untarnished by Obama–even though she is an Alinsky kinda girl.

Additionally, the GOP presidential candidate will have a two-pronged mission as the nominee:  to beat the MSM and Obama.  However, enlightened voters now know for sure the media is mostly state-controlled, Obama was never vetted, and that his radical leftist ideology drives his policies, appointments, and regulations out of the mainstream.

Furthermore, the MSM needs Romney to offset Obama.  The formula is quite simple:  RomneyCare is to ObamaCare as Obama’s rhetoric is to Romney’s rhetoric all of which cancel each other out according to how the media sees it.

I’m not buying the media hype over who can beat Obama.  The primary is the primary and the game changes in the general.  Voters are more inclined to vote with their wallets.  We have gas prices averaging at almost $4 per gallon across the country, skyrocketing food prices, record foreclosures, record number of people on food stamps, high unemployment, ObamaCare, crippling regulations, and much more.  So if the MSM thinks that the historic 2010 midterm GOP wave was a whim, think again.  The Right accomplished its key mission of splitting the Congress so that Obama’s agenda could not be rammed through anymore.  Would we have liked the Senate, sure, but in 2012, the job will be finished.  My point is that who do we really want in the Oval Office?  A northeastern Republican who disavows the GOP or not.  We already have someone who does not have the consent of the governed.  Are we really going to take that risk again?

Finally, Romney has always touted RomneyCare as a great model for all the states to implement, but the reality is, the only person who implemented RomneyCare was Obama and now we have ObamaCare.  No thanks.

The bare bones of the agreement our president is hammering out with the Taliban is this:

• Americans unconditionally withdraw all forces from Afghanistan.
• We give up all objection to the Taliban returning to power (as part of a “coalition” with the Karzai government * ).
• We build a headquarters compound for the Taliban.
• We announce that we are no longer enemies with the Taliban.
• We release all Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and allow them to return to Afghanistan — and resume the activities that landed them in Gitmo in the first place.
• We issue an apology from the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan; after which Obama goes barefoot and bareheaded to Kandahar, where he bows deeply from the waist and begs forgiveness — for George W. Bush’s wickedness.

(That last bullet point isn’t official; I’m just logically extrapolating.)

In the Power Line post, John Hinderacker theorizes about what President B.O. has in mind:

[T]he Afghanistan war is deeply unpopular [it is? I thought that was the good war! -- DaH], and Obama wants to run for re-election next November on the boast that he “ended two wars.” The baleful consequences of re-installing the Taliban in Afghanistan will not appear until long after the next election campaign, which is all that Obama cares about.

John implies, I believe, that the maneuver will have the desired effect: Obama will be lionized for being the peacemaker, Bush reviled as a warmonger, and this will give Bubble Boy a swift boost into a second term. But bear in mind that traditionally, the closer we approach an election, the more pessimistic become the lads at Power Line.

I have a different take on the political outcome of Obama “workin’ the machinations behind the scenes,” as Louis Farrakhan might put it. Rather than a political triumph for Obama, I see a soft spot that even the Republican Party will be able to hit while dead drunk and with one eye tied behind its back — which, to be honest, is the way it usually campaigns.

Here’s the plan. We wait until Barack Obama begins strutting and chest thumping about how he has “ended two wars,” then we respond thus:

President Obama has discovered a super-easy way to end any war quickly: just surrender. We prematurely withdraw from Afghanistan at the same time we prematurely withdraw from Iraq, leaving the door wide open to an Iranian invasion; what a diplomatic masterstroke! Obama becomes the first president in American history to lose two wars… simultaneously!

It seems the One We Have Been Waiting For actually believes that surrendering to two different gangs of radical Islamists is America’s greatest national-security triumph, and he expects us to reward him with another term. Even worse, these are two wars that we had already won — that is, until Barack Obama took over and found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Heckuva job, Mr. President.

I have no idea who gave him the cockamamie idea to bring the Taliban back in Afghanistan and to prematurely withdraw from Iraq and allow Iran to take over. It’s as if in 1945, after the Germans surrendered in World War II, FDR had entered into secret negotiations with the surviving Nazis to withdraw all American troops, then help restore the Nazi Party to power again in Germany… while simultaneously encouraging the Soviets to seize control of Japan, China, and the Philippines.

Even Jimmy Carter stands in awe of such a colossal concatenation of catastrophe.

Barack Obama has pulled off a feat that none of us thought possible: His foreign and national-security policy has failed even worse than his domestic and economic policy… a breathtaking achievement!

I say, bring it on; how I long to have that debate. What is Obama going to argue? “Look, it has been three months already, and the Taliban has not yet reinstated mass torture-executions of Christians, moderate Moslems, and uppity women!”

Well of course not: Part of Obama’s secret deal with the Taliban requires them to hold off until Obama is safely reelected… probably the only clause of the contract they will fulfill; and then only because having Barack Hussein Obama continue to occupy the White House is in the Taliban’s best interest, and Iran’s as well.

All that’s left is to declare all American hydrocarbon fuel off-limits at the very moment the Iranians decide to blockade the Strait of Hormuz; then the cosmic Obasmic failure will be complete, thorough — and irreversible.

* Note that the Taliban and Hamid Karzai’s government are deadly, sworn enemies; how’s that parlay going to work out?

Cross-posted on Big Lizards…

The U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported in the first nine months of this year, making it likely that 2011 will be the first time since 1949 that the nation is a net exporter of such goods, primarily diesel.

That’s not all. The U.S. has reversed another decades-long trend. It began producing more crude oil in 2008 than the year before and accelerated that upswing 3% in the first nine months of this year compared with the same period in 2010. That production has helped reduce U.S. imports of crude oil by about 10% since 2006.

“It’s dramatic. It’s transformative,” Edward Morse, a former senior U.S. energy official who now directs global commodities research at Citigroup, says of the historic shifts. He says the U.S. is importing a smaller share — 49% in 2010, down from 60% in 2005 — of the oil it uses, adding: “We’re moving toward energy independence.”

Before we start jumping for joy here, it’s important to note that these figures include all exports of any petroleum based products, not just what we drill here at home. Two factors accounted for the lion’s share of this shift, and one of them is the increasing quantity of oil sands based products which we import from Canada and refine. Large amounts of that, particularly diesel, are then resold and exported.

The second factor is the boom we’ve seen in seen in the extraction of oil (along with natural gas) in shale deposits, particularly in North Dakota, Montana and Texas. Additional strain on domestic supplies has been relieved by the falling price of natural gas as we open up more supplies in Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere. A number of manufacturing interests, such as steel production, have been increasingly turning to natural gas to cut production costs, making their products more competitive and lowering demand for crude oil products.

Crude oil production is still far below where it could be, given the stingy nature of the Obama administration when it comes to drilling permits and oil lease auctions, but even that has been on the rise. The industry has managed to fight its way back to a great degree, producing jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign sources, even as they fight with their own government. Imagine where we could be if Washington wasn’t trying to throttle the flow by holding up the Keystone XL pipeline or constantly pushing job killing bills like The FRAC Act which would restrict horizontal drilling and development of previously untenable resources.

Of course, as the study notes, no matter how much progress we make, we’re probably never going to get back to the production / consumption ratio we had in the 70′s. But that doesn’t mean that we still can’t do a lot better than we are now. In 2010 we only imported 12% of our oil from Saudi Arabia, down from 19% in 1993. And with just a little less interference from the government, we can drive that number down further still.

Weasel Zippers offers an eye-opening then-and-now media pair that the Obama administration is going to have a difficult time explaining away. First is a quote from an article at ABC News dated July 30, in which the president and his minions touted the success of the auto industry bailout, assuring skeptics that the taxpayers would be reimbursed:

Obama said Thursday that the government will recover all of the taxpayer money used in the auto industry bailout last year and held it up as an example of ‘a good story’ in his administration’s economic efforts.

The White House said today that that pledge covers the money that the Obama administration put toward the auto industry, not the $25 billion spent under the Bush Administration in late 2008.

‘The money that this administration invested, about $60 billion, we believe we’re on the path to recouping all of that,’ [then-Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs said.

Fast forward to this morning and an appearance by Obama car czar Steven Rattner on CNBC (video here), where he was asked, “Do you think that the taxpayer is ultimately going to get paid back?” Rattner’s response: “No, but we never said the taxpayer was going to get paid back.”

Meantime, there goes another $60 billion of your hard-earned money down the crapper. Four more years, anyone?

Related Articles

• Poll: 62% of Americans say Obama’s stimulus created more debt
• CBO: Jobs created or “saved” by stimulus cost U.S. taxpayers $228,055 a pop
• First glimpse of Obama’s big September jobs plan: Repeat the stimulus
• Obama has made good on his promise
• ObamaCare, the great job killer
• Shared sacrifice: Cutting ObamaCare could save $2 trillion
• Breaking: Obama to ask for another $50 billion in stimulus spending

You can also tell from this message at the president’s campaign website:

This holiday season, we’re giving you a chance to have a little fun at the expense of a Republican in your life by letting them know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign.

Simply enter their name and email address below. Then, we’ll send them a message letting them know they inspired you to donate. [Emphasis added]

Keith Koffler at White House Dossier writes vis-à-vis the request for contact information:

The effort could help the Obama campaign build a database that would enable it to target Republican voters during the general election campaign. But, more perniciously, it could also become part of an [sic] Democratic effort to influence Republican primary voters to select a candidate Democrats think Obama could most easily defeat.

While Obama does have a troubling history of asking supporters to snitch on his enemies, I see this latest move as far less invidious, as just another sappy hook to raise donations. In fact, the message doubles down on a previous hook—dinner with Obama and his missus—by including the following as a footnote:

Important: By making a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to have dinner with Barack and Michelle Obama. By clicking on the ‘Submit’ button below or otherwise participating in the promotion, you agree to be bound by these Official Rules and represent that you satisfy all of the eligibility requirements.

Related Articles

• Would you spend $3 to have dinner with Obama? (Do I hear $2.50)
• Obama’s myth of transparency: game, match, set
• Obama’s latest gaffe: We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad
• OWS alert: Obama’s newest campaign adviser is Wall Street lobbyist
• Where’s Weirdo: Obama’s very special photo op
• Remember when Obama was too cool to joke about?
• Barack Obama: “funniest person alive”
• The real joke behind the White House’s unintended “laugh” line
• Obama administration fights to keep WH visitor logs secret
• Obama new AttackWatch website: Snitches wanted
• Internal WH memo: Few entrants in Obama commencement speech contest

Defiant Republicans pushed legislation through the House Tuesday night that would keep alive Social Security payroll tax cuts for some 160 million Americans at President Barack Obama’s request—but also would require construction of a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline that has sparked a White House veto threat. [Emphasis added]

Passage, on a largely party-line vote of 234-193, sent the measure toward its certain demise in the Democratic-controlled Senate, triggering the final partisan showdown of a remarkably quarrelsome year of divided government.

So, the Republicans accede to the president’s request but are still somehow the bad guys because there are strings attached, in this case Obama’s signing off on the Keystone XL pipeline. Even if you accept opponents’ arithmetic—that the project will create 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, not 100,000 or more as supporters are claiming—it still reduces dependence on foreign oil. Besides, the bill contains other sweeteners, including another round of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

But nothing will stave off the measure’s “certain demise in the Democratic-controlled Senate,” whose leader, Harry Reid, dismissed the pipeline provision as “ideological candy” for the Tea Party set.

Oh, and did I neglect to mention that the government is facing another shutdown on Friday? With the two parties in Congress locked in a stalemate, Democrats, at the president’s urging, are holding up a $1 trillion omnibus bill to fund government for the balance of the fiscal year that began on October 1.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday:

We’ve got a bipartisan agreement on a number of appropriation bills, and the president presumably—in order to create some political issue, which I find difficult to understand—has instructed Democratic senators not to sign the conference report on a bill they support.

A question that naturally arises is when will the liberal-left media, not to mention Democratic leaders in Congress, declare that their own party and the president are holding the government hostage? That is what they did in April, when a governmental shutdown was looming because Republicans, in the words ofDemocratic Whip Steny Hoyer, refused “to compromise on their divisive social agenda.”

Related Articles

• The GOP payroll tax cut proposal as viewed by the party of gorilla dust
• Liberal news flash: GOP opposes Obama plan to cut taxes
• As government shutdown looms, Obama leaves DC—for campaign trail
• Obama ups ante on government shutdown; rejects GOP funding extension
• Jon Stewart: Obama has gone from “Yes, we can” to “You know, whatever” (Video)

I was pretty mad at Obama … I had changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, and I had blacked out the top of the “h” on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, “Got nope” instead of “got hope.” I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down.

But then she learned about the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) created by ObamaCare, which is tailor-made for her needs as an uninsured Californian with breast cancer.

I have tremendous sympathy for this woman, who was facing breast cancer at a time when her husband’s COBRA had long since run out, and the family had been unable to afford insurance for several years.  Health insurance is very expensive in California, as a result of the state’s penchant for overregulation, public subsidies, and rent-seeking.  All insured health-care transactions in the Golden State contribute in one way or another to the gigantic state health-care apparatus, which endlessly drives up the cost of everything in the “private” sector.  (This squeeze has produced a mushrooming medical-services industry across the border in Mexico, as well as causing a growing number of practitioners in the state to operate on a cash-only basis – no insurance accepted.)

But PCIP is a superb example of how ObamaCare was frontloaded with goodies to attract constituencies.  Because if the Valley Gal were to read the fine print on PCIP, she’d discover that the program ends on 31 December 2013.

California administers the PCIP using ObamaCare funds.  Here is the information from the California PCIP website (emphasis added):

As a result of the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010, California has a contract with the federal Department of Health and Human Services to establish a federally-funded high risk pool program to provide health coverage for eligible individuals. The program will last until December 31, 2013 when the national health reform is set to begin. After that date, there will no longer be a need for high risk pools because federal rules will not allow insurers to reject persons with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher rates than those without such conditions.

The federally-funded program is called the California Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). The PCIP offers health coverage to medically-uninsurable individuals who live in California. The program is available for individuals who have not had health coverage in the last 6 months. The California PCIP is run by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB).

California actually already had a high-risk insurance program, before ObamaCare was passed.  The Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP) became operational in 1991, and at one time served over 27,000 Californians.  Spiraling costs (partly due to legislative increases in plan benefits) meant the plan had to increase premiums and cap the number of participants at around 14,000.  In 2002, a 36-month limit was imposed on participation in MRMIP, with the proviso that MRMIP insurance providers would guarantee the offer of insurance to termed-out “MRMIP graduates” at 110% of the cost of their MRMIP premiums.

Loosely tethered to some semblance of fiscal accounting, MRMIP is definitely more expensive than PCIP in terms of monthly premiums.  Through 31 December 2011, for example, the woman in the San Fernando Valley can get PCIP coverage for herself for $306 a month, compared to the $480 she would have to pay Kaiser Permanente under MRMIP, or the $797 for a PPO plan with Anthem or Blue Cross under MRMIP.  And in January 2012, the MRMIP premiums are scheduled to increase.  The PPO plan premiums will go up to $865, and the Kaiser Permanente premiums to $516.

But that’s just something states and private companies have to do, because they face bad consequences if they don’t exert some control, however slight, over the gap between their revenues and their expenditures.  ObamaCare is subject to no such pressures.  Hence, it was able to lower PCIP premiums for Californians by an average of 18% in August 2011, because, as explained by the California administrators, “We want to make sure that everyone who qualifies for this program has access to its benefits and is not deterred by price.”

Presumably, ObamaCare, like Obama Money, comes from Obama’s Stash. It has certainly bought an apology from a Democrat who was previously angry enough at the president to switch to Independent; it may well buy her vote next year.  But the joke on her will not be a funny one.  PCIP ends on 31 December 2013, and what will happen after that is that premiums will go up – for everyone.  But services will also be restricted, for everyone who contracts for medical care using “insurance.”  And those are just the direct, first-order consequences.

The Valley Gal will find herself increasingly subject to state bureaucrats who get to decide how much she has to pay for her health “insurance” – which will actually be a state-run health plan over which she has no discretion – based on her income and assets.  Up to now, even in the wildly overregulated health care environment we have today, middle-class householders have been able to make choices of their own by maintaining private insurance at their discretion.  But it is “insurance” itself that is being subverted:  under ObamaCare, “insurance” is not a ticket to independence but a means for the government to exert control over the middle class.

The process of subverting medical insurance began decades ago, as alert readers will no doubt point out.  But ObamaCare takes it across the finish line with the insurance mandate.  Under no circumstances is the premium-cutting, welcome-all-comers PCIP model sustainable – and without a mandate, its unsustainability will blow up all over the Obama Stash program very, very quickly.  There’s nothing behind the politically deceptive PCIP premium-cutting except the future earnings of millions of people who have other plans for their money – if they’ve even been born yet.

Will Obama get his mandate?  The Supreme Court will make one decision on that before the 2012 election.  Americans may or may not accept it, if it goes the wrong way.  But one thing is for sure: as provided by the “Affordable Care Act” itself, PCIP will cease providing access to medical care in exchange for unrealistically low premiums in a little over 24 months.  I’d strongly suggest no one build his or her life around it.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

A report from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) reveals that 47% of Congress members are millionaires, some of them many times over. When you contrast that finding with the percentage of U.S. households with net assets of at least $1 million—a mere 4%—the handwriting on the wall is clear. Extend the number of seats in Congress to roughly 115 million, one for each household recorded in the 2010 census, and we become a nation of mostly very wealthy people. How’s that for wealth redistribution?

Sheila Krumholz, executive director of CRP, writes that “the vast majority of members of Congress are quite comfortable, financially.” That’s putting it mildly. Of the current 250 members who are millionaires, nine of them have over $100 million. One of them, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), is within hailing distance of half a billion dollars, with an average net worth of over $448 million.

Issa, who is the richest, is followed by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) with $380 million, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) with $232 million, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) with $193 million, and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) with $174 million.

Since there are 531 Congress members in total, that means that 281 members have an average net worth of less than a million dollars. But is anyone in Congress poor? If the records obtained by CRP are accurate and truthful, the answer is a resounding yes. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) is in debt to the tune of $4.7 million. Rep. Steve Fincher (R-TN) is also reportedly in the red $3.3 million, followed by Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), who owes $2.5 million.

But back to the good news: Despite the global economic meltdown and moribund recovery, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator (senators tend to be richer than House members) is up about 11 percent, from $2.38 million in 2009, to $2.63 million in 2010 (the most recent year for which financial data were available).

A complete list of Congress members and where they fall on the wealth continuum is here. You might also enjoy tabbing over to a listing of the most popular investments among members of Congress. I’ll give you a sneak preview: The number one favorite investment vehicle is a company that paid no federal tax in 2010.

Do you think this is what the founding fathers envisioned when they established Congress?

Related Articles

• First Lady spent $10 million in taxpayer money on vacations last year
• Obama’s Agriculture Secretary: Food Stamps create jobs (Video)
• Jay Carney claims unemployment checks create jobs
• ObamaCare, the great job killer
• In midst of recession, new study finds members of Congress getting richer
• Members of Congress own stock in scanner companies: Conflict of interests?
• Clintons looking to buy $11 million Westchester County mansion
• The First Lady’s $80,000-a-day vacation

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Sad but true, the president is number 25 on the magazine’s “25 Least Influential People Alive.” He is down sharing the dregs with MSNBC host Ed Schultz, Newsweek editor Tina Brown, deposed Egyptian “President” Hosni Mubarak, disgraced C&W singer Hank Williams, Jr., and (GOP take notice!) House Majority Leader John Boehner.

If the fact of being included in a list of do-nothings and failures is not already a bitter enough pill for a man of Obama’s towering ego, the irony that he was GQ’s “Man of the Year” in 2008 and “Leader of the Year” in 2009 is surely not lost on him.

The issue has yet to hit the stands, but the website TVNewser offers a preview of things to come in its summary of Ed Schultz:

…Then there pundits like Ed Schultz. Do you watch “The Ed Show” on MSNBC? Of course you don’t. No one does. The only reason people watch “The Ed Show” is they’re working out in a hotel gym and they can’t find a staff member to change the channel to ESPN.

But that’s small potatoes compared with GQ’s assessment of Tina Brown, quoted by Forbes:

Brown spent 2011 transforming Newsweek from a magazine no one reads into a magazine no one reads but everyone despises. That’s what happens when you star-f**k the corpse of Princess Diana by Photoshopping her at age 50 for your cover, then do a separate Photoshop of her holding an iPhone, and then create a fake Facebook page for her that includes wall posts from Deepak Chopra. Did you know Tina and Di were friends? They were! This Photoshopped image of them having lunch with Stevie Nicks is proof!

While the president’s detractors will take perverse delight in GQ’s diss of him, I think a case could be made that he is one of the more influential people alive today. Consider: Under his stewardship, the nation’s AAA credit rating was downgraded by Standard & Poor’s for the first time ever. By January of 2013, he will have added as much debt as all 43 prior presidents combined. Finally on his watch, the poverty level in the U.S. has reached an all-time high.

I would contend that none of these “achievements” would be possible under a leader who lacked influence. Barack Obama has proved to be powerfully influential in much the way plague and natural disasters have impacted the lives of the many.

Related Articles

• Russian news anchor flips the bird at mention of the name Obama (Video)
• Shock poll: 48% of white blue-collar Dems oppose renominating Obama
• Would you spend $3 to have dinner with Obama? (Do I hear $2.50)
• Obama has delivered ‘change that we believed in’ (says Obama)
• Geithner in April: No risk of S&P downgrading AAA credit rating (Video)
• By January 2013, Obama will have added as much debt as all 43 prior presidents
• Remember when Obama was too cool to joke about?
• Poll: Liberal Dems, blacks unhappy with Obama’s jobs, economic policies
• Liberal pundit: Obama’s 2008 “hope” message becomes 2012 “fear” message (Video)

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

While President Obama is not exclusively to blame for the God-awful “mess” the country finds itself in, a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday demonstrates that one demographic—white blue-collar Democrats—has so soured on his presidency that nearly half would prefer their party nominate a different candidate to run in 2012.

The poll also shows that Obama’s approval rating has plummeted from 76% shortly after his election in 2008 to 44% now, while his disapproval—23% then, 54% now—has taken the opposite turn.

Finally, the survey shows that a combined 53% of respondents oppose Obama’s health care law, while 38% favor the law. What is striking about this statistic is a secondary split among those who oppose it. Thirty-seven percent claim the law is too liberal, while 14% say it is not liberal enough. The clear suggestion is that the president, who has straddled the fence on many issues, has alienated voters from the other end of the ideological spectrum while simultaneously failing to win over those at his own end.

Related Articles

• How do you solve a problem like Obama: Let the games begin
• Election 2012: One year and counting; Obama’s chances
• Poll: 1 in 4 Dems want someone other than Obama as their candidate
• By January 2013, Obama will have added as much debt as all 43 prior presidents
• Poll: More than half of voters do not believe Obama deserves a second term
• Poll: Independents reject Obama’s “jobs bill” 53% to 33%; likability under 50%
• Economy needs 254K jobs a month for 5 yrs to reach pre-recession unemployment

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

As Mediaite observes:

Hey, all you people complaining that the Occupy protesters need to start protesting the White House in addition to the evil banks? You just got your day.

The chant—“Mr. President, over 4,000 peaceful protesters have been arrested”—begins at about the 1:07 cue in the video. It crescendos and continues until the president’s supporters shout down the protesters with the distressingly familiar “O-bam-AH” chant that was so prevalent in 2008 and shortly thereafter.

If nothing else, the noisy reception Obama received today reveals that the Occupiers are equal opportunity boors.

Related Articles

• Hypocritical OWS protesters channel 1%: Stay at $700-a-night hotel
• Occupiers’ newest enemy: schoolchildren
• Poll: 73% of OWS disapprove of Obama’s job; 36% plan to vote for him
• Pew poll: Public now divided over Occupy Wall Street
• Obama campaign goes all in: casts its lot with Occupy movement

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.