Monday, January 12, 2009
The day’s top political news:
In a rare Sunday session, the Senate advanced legislation that would set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as “wilderness”
Democrats did not allow amendments on the massive bill -- the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years.
The measure — actually a collection of about 160 bills — would confer the government's highest level of protection on land ranging from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range to Oregon's Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons.
Shades of spotted owls and snail darter minnows.
Bernard Madoff could be forced today to trade his luxurious penthouse for a jail cell.
A New York City judge is set to rule on whether the disgraced financier should have his bail revoked and be sent behind bars.
Madoff is accused of burning investors in a $50 billion fraud and its reported the total story may get much worse.
While free on bail, Madoff sent more than $1 million worth of jewelry and heirlooms as gifts to family and friends over the holidays.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090112/D95LIUEO1.html
President-elect Barack Obama says reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.
A fortunate (for Obama) excuse for failing to do what he promised voters he would do.
Obama also says he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $350 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Obama is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3YMkstD3JzA
Opinion:
Leadership is an asset badly needed by the Republican Party and those who follow it.
Columnist Star Parker sets the stage:
“The first Gallup poll out on President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan shows a divided country,with Republicans in a distinct minority and in opposition.
“Democrats support the $750-billion plan (67 percent to 19 percent) as do Independents (54 percent to 37 percent). But Republicans stand in opposition (56 percent to 34 percent).
“But taking a look at Republican Party reality inside the Washington beltway, we see a rudderless ship, out of touch with the grass roots of its own party.
“Our Republican president -- yes, he is still president -- has taken himself out of the discussion. And on Capitol Hill, the Republican leadership appears quite comfortable with the initiative in principle, expressing reservations only in regard to its form and content.
“Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it an "obvious need" but expressed concern about the massive spending proposal translating into "long-term systematic changes ..." House Republican leader John Boehner appealed to the importance of finding "the right balance."
“Pretty tepid stuff, given the severity of the times and the underlying ideological implications of where Obama and his Democratic cohorts in Congress plan to take us.”
There is potentially more distance between ideologies of the in-coming President and the Republican Party as structured philosophically. There are real differences, substantive differences. Differences based on philosophy, and differences based on a divergence of opinion on actual facts and of perceived reality.
So great is the chasm of disagreement, that it is reasonable to embrace the notion that many Americans today hold stronger distrust and opposition to our government than ever before in the lifetimes of those alive today.
It is a tribute to our democracy and to the foundational principles that created that democracy that such strong disagreements and opposition threatens no remote potential of rioting in the streets, much less open revolution.
Lesser nations – nations lacking our heritage and traditional approach to freedom – cannot make such claims and would be far more shaky when facing such potentially virulent opposition.
I understand the opposition. Despite (or maybe because) the fact I often deal directly with the actions of Congress and others, I share the deeply held feelings of dislike and distrust of our incoming president.
For one thing, I seriously doubt Obama’s patriotism. He worked quite hard in the early days of his campaign to prove he had little respect for patriotic symbols and practices. He was photographed clutching his crotch while everyone else on the dais was saluting the National Anthem. He went out of his way to denounce wearing a flag pin in his lapel.
Quibbles? I don’t buy it. He was reaching out to the left wing extremists of his party – people such as those who populate Berkeley and Frisco – the most un-American, if not anti American areas of the entire country.
So he was simply making a political pitch to the extremes of his party as he sought its nomination.
That doesn’t sell with me. A candidate who so blithely waves off patriotism for crass political reasons, is not man enough to lead me when external enemies come after us. Especially since his Church – the one led by his openly anti American spiritual leader – demands he give “non-negotiable commitment” to Africa. For 20 years, Obama supported, endorsed and embraced that way of thinking.
Of course the media – long totally corrupted and totally in the tank for Obama – brushes such concerns aside with snide sneers for any who share views such as mine.
Facing such extremes running our country, it seems clear the battlefield is obvious and the forces of good and evil arrayed openly and without question.
Would that ii were so.
Sadly, the Republican cause lacks a dynamic leader who can take our message and our cause to the American people as a whole and begin leading us out of the wilderness of the past. We DO, of course have Newt – and Newt is perhaps the smartest politician of all – but Newt (whose personal leadership is crucial to our future) is not positioned to lead from the front.
The GOP is about to elect a new chairman of the RNC. Excuse me – about 150 members of the party elite – are about to elect a new chairman. It’s a small constituency with a truly important mission ahead.
Of course, we also have that problem of actually having a message a leader could enunciate. Star Parker and others who comment on the state of the party today, makes some good points…and raises some crucial questions.
If only we had answers.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
Obama’s “Natural Born” Problem
David Huntwork
By now you are probably aware that there have been a multitude of lawsuits filed in regards to the question of whether or not President-elect Barack Obama is in fact eligible under the “natural born” provision of the Constitution of the United States of America to be the President of the United States (POTUS).
The Constitutional provisions are very specific when it comes to the minimal qualifications for President. One is to be over thirty-five. He is. Two, is being in the country fourteen years. He has been. Three, is to be a natural-born citizen. The latter remains unproven, a matter of contention, and appears to be increasingly unlikely to be true.
There are several variations on this theme, but the general and most often made argument is relatively simple and straightforward.
The Plaintiff in one of the filed suits put it this way.
“If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of ‘natural born.’ ”
http://globalpolitician.com/25363-barack-obama
2.
Obama Under Pressure On Interrogation Policy
Some See Harsh Methods as Essential
President-elect Barack Obama pledges to end all torture in interrogations, but some officials caution against leaving the CIA too little flexibility. (By Linda Davidson -- The Washington Post)
Michael Abramowitz, Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
President-elect Barack Obama introduced his nominees to head his national security team on Friday. But now Obama begins a perilous balancing act to fulfill his pledge to make a clean break with the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration while still effectively ensuring the nation's security.
Obama named retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair director of national intelligence and former congressman and White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta as his CIA director.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010903784.html
3.
Defect Analysis and Liberalism
Paul Carlson
Liberals are on the ascendant, and conservatives are working hard to regroup. Unfortunately, many of the voters in the recent election would not be able to define either of those terms, much less describe their underlying history and principles.
What are the primary differences between liberals and conservatives?
Readers of American Thinker are familiar with many, such as groupthink versus individualism, government programs versus private charity, and good intentions versus actual results. In this column I'll endeavor to present something new.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/defect_analysis_and_liberalism.html
4.
The new rulers' new rules
Paul Jacob
In little more than a week, Barack Obama assumes the office of president of the United States and, once again, all will be right with the world.
At least, that’s how some see it. Me? I haven’t consumed any of that Kool-Aid.
It may be that Obama will bring some positive change to the federal government. But just how much harm will his big-government philosophy pile on? Coming from Chicago’s Democratic machine via less than a full term as arguably the most liberal United States senator, Obama offers mostly grist for the skeptics’ mill.
It remains unlikely that we’ll see any meaningful reform, and surely no shrinking of big government.
But remember, President Obama is not acting alone. He will have accomplices.
Though the outgoing Congress earned the lowest public approval scores in the history of such polls, soon-to-be President Obama certainly seems to be counting on the new, even worse, Congress.
Unprecedented for a president-elect, Obama made a national television address before his inauguration to urge swift action on the economy. NBC News reported, “While short on specifics, Barack Obama said that Congress needs to act fast.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2009/01/11/the_new_rulers_new_rules
1.
Obama’s “Natural Born” Problem
David Huntwork
By now you are probably aware that there have been a multitude of lawsuits filed in regards to the question of whether or not President-elect Barack Obama is in fact eligible under the “natural born” provision of the Constitution of the United States of America to be the President of the United States (POTUS).
The Constitutional provisions are very specific when it comes to the minimal qualifications for President. One is to be over thirty-five. He is. Two, is being in the country fourteen years. He has been. Three, is to be a natural-born citizen. The latter remains unproven, a matter of contention, and appears to be increasingly unlikely to be true.
There are several variations on this theme, but the general and most often made argument is relatively simple and straightforward.
The Plaintiff in one of the filed suits put it this way.
“If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of ‘natural born.’ ”
It also was a complication that Obama’s mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.
When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found.”
The Obama campaign had insisted from the very beginning that Barack Obama was in fact born in the state of Hawaii which would automatically make him eligible for the highest office of the land. All US citizens are issued a birth certificate within a short time after birth. It would be very simple, and take about five minutes, for the Obama organization to put this rumor to rest and prove once and for all that this is just some wild conspiracy from the Internet rumor mill that should be mocked and ignored as simply “sour grapes” by a die hard few.
Except that Obama has steadfastly refused to release his birth certificate and has shown the willingness to spend a large amount of money on legal fees while enduring increasingly bad publicity by refusing to release it or any hospital records associated with a birth in the state of Hawaii.
One of the cases filed with the Supreme Court also raised the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship at that time, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship. Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born”.
There have also been suspicions that Obama’s college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that could be the reason why those records were never released.
The questions of his birth certificate and constitutional eligibility for POTUS have been ongoing for months. Unlike the convoluted conspiracies and “innovative” conjectures that have been leveled against various presidents including Bill Clinton and the current holder of the office, this particular allegation of constitutional ineligibility would be extremely easy to refute and the entire mess could be over in just a matter of minutes. The logical conclusion is that there has to be some sort of reason that this document (if it exists) has not been released. There is obviously something to hide here and I am not alone in my interest in what that may be.
Months ago the Obama campaign, in an attempt to “answer” this question, posted a copy of what was said to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” on the official Obama website. The Main Stream Media and the Progressive blogosphere quickly and proudly pointed to it and proclaimed the case closed. Unfortunately, the posting of that document actually raised as many or more questions than it had supposedly answered. The computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” is used by the state of Hawaii in lieu of the “Certificate of Live Birth,” or if originally filed, a “Delayed Certificate of Birth,” or even a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.” For verification purposes, however, the “Certification of Live Birth” does not indicate which birth record “root document(s)” that the Certification is based upon.
Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. Obama’s certification of live birth doesn’t list a hospital, attending physician, or any witnesses of the birth that could be tracked down and investigated. The posted document is essentially worthless as any sort of proof that Obama was born in the United States and simply put does not prove natural-born status. Yet that document is the only evidence that Barack Obama has so far produced that he is in fact eligible to be the President of the United States.
My initial hunch was that Obama was in fact not born in Kenya, but that the name on the birth certificate was not “Barack Obama” but some other, possibly “Barry” with perhaps even a different last name (his mother’s?). It is also perhaps an amended birth certificate (not uncommon in cases of adoption by a step parent) listing his now legal name as “Barry Sotoero” and thus somehow a cause of embarrassment or a potential political liability. Obama’s adoption in Indonesia by his stepfather Lolo Sotoero would make that a very plausible scenario.
Such speculation is obviously conjectural. But much of Obama’s youth is shrouded in mystery especially in regards to his Islamic schooling, upbringing in Indonesia, drug use, and later ties to a variety of radical and questionable characters and mentors. With that in mind, perhaps an actual birth in Kenya wouldn’t be all that surprising but merely the icing on the cake when it comes to the strange, twisted and contradictory tale of Barack Obama’s life.
There was some whispering about Senator John McCain’s own natural-born citizenship status and POTUS eligibility early on and to his credit he produced his long form birth certificate in record time putting such questions to rest very quickly. Meanwhile, many months later, we are still sifting through rumors, Supreme Court petitions, multiple lawsuits from all over the country, and articles like this one while the Obama camp continues playing “whack a mole” in regards to questions about Obama’s natural-born status.
Three things have made me take an interest in this sideshow saga and made me at least somewhat increasingly open to the idea that Barack Obama may in fact have been born in Kenya. The first is that the Kenyan ambassador to the United States has openly admitted that Obama was born in Kenya.
Mike In The Morning Calls The Kenyan Embassy (101 WRIF Radio, Detroit, Michigan)
Radio Host:
One more quick question, president elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?
Kenyan Ambassador:
It is already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.
Radio Host:
But his birth place, they will put up a marker there?
Kenyan Ambassador:
It will depend on the government. It is already well known.
The sound clip can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14.
The second is that soon to be Secretary of Commerce and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is on record as stating that Obama is “an immigrant”. An odd thing to say if it were not true, and an outright lie otherwise. You can view the video clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo&eurl=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114&feature=player_embedded .
Perhaps the strongest anecdotal evidence is that Obama’s own paternal grandmother has said on multiple occasions that she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama’s Kenyan half brother and half sister have also stated that Obama was born in Kenya. None of this anecdotal evidence is conclusive but combined with Obama’s steadfast refusal to release his long form birth certificate it plants the seeds of suspicion and makes you really want to ask a simple question. What is he hiding? And why?
The real fun to be had with this story is not that Obama for any reason would be somehow decreed ineligible as the next President of the United States (it won’t happen) but that there apparently is no oversight at all to the election process and a candidates eligibility for that office. Wouldn’t it, and shouldn’t it, be common sense and standard practice that some official or semi-official body like the Federal Election Commission or the respective major political parties require that all candidates for President of the United States provide proof that they meet the requirements for the office as stated in the Constitution? Is that really too much to ask?
Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.
And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an “I vote present” product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.
The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee.
If indeed Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the highest office in the land, and could theoretically be an unconstitutional president, it is not the child who dared mention that “The Emperor has no clothes!” who is being “embarrassing and destructive” by bringing this up, but the Democratic party and the electoral system as a whole which allowed an unqualified candidate with unproven, dubious credentials to be allowed to appear on the ballot in a national election.
In the worse case scenario we will have taken just another baby step towards losing our Republic and the rule of law when that dusty and irritating Constitution becomes something to just be ignored or set aside whenever it might be inconvenient, or upset some people, or just be impractical for this particular “situation”.
Maybe we have reached the point where we just set aside parts of the Constitution if they are inconvenient and that might potentially be a problem for He Who Will Slow the Rising of the Seas and the fainting, ecstatic, potentially angry mob who propelled him to power. We have already journeyed a ways down the road once traveled by ancient Rome where the elites began to worry about the mood and reactions of the masses who openly threatened disorder and mayhem if they were unhappy, while those who held the reigns of power increasingly ignored the once revered rules that had held their political system together.
At the time of the publication of this article, Barack Obama still had not proved his eligibility to serve as President of the United States as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. And he probably remains unable to do so.
David Huntwork is a conservative activist and freelance columnist in Northern Colorado, where he lives with his wife and three young daughters. You may view his bio and past columns at http://DavidHuntwork.tripod.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions at Davehuntwork@juno.com.
http://globalpolitician.com/25363-barack-obama
2.
Obama Under Pressure On Interrogation Policy
Some See Harsh Methods as Essential
President-elect Barack Obama pledges to end all torture in interrogations, but some officials caution against leaving the CIA too little flexibility. (By Linda Davidson -- The Washington Post)
Michael Abramowitz, Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
President-elect Barack Obama introduced his nominees to head his national security team on Friday. But now Obama begins a perilous balancing act to fulfill his pledge to make a clean break with the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration while still effectively ensuring the nation's security.
Obama named retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair director of national intelligence and former congressman and White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta as his CIA director.
"Under my administration, the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. . . . We will uphold our highest values and ideals," Obama told reporters. "It is important for us to do that not only because that's who we are, but also, ultimately it will make us safer and will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists."
At the same time Obama intends to curb counterterrorism practices he considers excessive or even illegal, he will also come under great pressure to leave the CIA the kind of flexibility its operatives have long considered necessary to heading off another Sept. 11-style attack, current and former national security officials said.
Many officials expect Obama to fulfill a pledge to eliminate the special rules for CIA interrogations of suspected terror suspects and require the agency's operatives to follow non-coercive military guidelines for questioning. Human rights groups are already calling on the president-elect to send a strong message to the world that U.S. policy on dealing with detainees has changed.
"With the stroke of a pen Obama could take a major step to restore America's moral authority and make clear that the United State no longer endorses t orture, secret detention or abuse," Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, said yesterday. Her group has called on Obama to issue an executive order soon after taking office mandating a single U.S. standard for CIA and military interrogation that prohibits harsh tactics.
Agency officials have said they will do whatever the president orders -- but along with other senior Bush officials they have made little secret that they consider their interrogation program effective.
"Those were programs that have been absolutely essential to maintaining our capacity to interfere with and defeat all further attacks against the United States," Vice President Cheney said in an interview this week with CBS Radio. "If I had advice to give, it would be, before you start to implement your campaign rhetoric, you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is we did and how we did it, because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead."
Obama did not refer to the interrogation controversies in introducing Blair and Panetta. Instead, he focused on the need for candid, unvarnished assessments, an apparent reference to allegations that intelligence was politicized in the run-up to the Iraq war.
"We've learned that to make pragmatic policy choices, we must insist on assessments grounded solely on the facts and not seek information to suit any ideological agenda," Obama said.
Obama went out of his way to defend Panetta, rebutting criticism from the Hill, which has receded in the last day or two, that the onetime White House budget director is not qualified for the job.
Describing Panetta as "one of the finest public servants of our time," Obama said he would have his "complete trust and substantial clout" at the CIA, with the full authority of the White House behind him. "He has handled intelligence daily, at the very highest levels, and time and again he has demonstrated sound judgment, grace under fire and complete integrity," Obama said.
Obama also announced John Brennan, who had initially been considered for the CIA post, as homeland security adviser, a post that may be folded into the National Security Council after Obama takes office. Brennan will also have the title of deputy national security adviser. Mike McConnell, the current DNI, will retain an advisory position, Obama said, while Michael E. Leiter will keep his job as head of the National Counterterrorism Center.
Obama faces considerable pressure to take early and dramatic steps to shift course from the Bush administration on a range of legal issues involving terrorism -- shutting down the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, curbing the practice of rendering terror suspects to other countries outside normal channels, rewriting legal opinions on terror policy his advisers have condemned. Dawn E. Johnsen, Obama's choice to lead the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, has been a vocal critic of the office's output and the process by which it has reached conclusions, testifying before Congress that the Bush administration's approach to legal advice had been infected by political considerations.
Each of these terror issues present a series of minefields for the Obama administration, perhaps no more so than in the area of interrogation policy, which has been a major source of embarrassment for the Bush administration since revelations surfaced of the use of waterboarding (simulated drowning) and other harsh tactics on senior al-Qaeda operatives. In 2007, Bush signed an executive order that allowed the CIA to use interrogation tactics tougher than those allowed for the military, though he did not authorize some of the most controversial techniques, including waterboarding.
If Obama goes ahead with his plan to scrap the special CIA program, he could expose himself to criticism that he did not do all he could to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly the kind of criticism that President Bush himself was subjected to after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"The Bush White House was accused of paying insufficient attention to the threat posed by al-Qaeda before 9/11," said one senior administration official. "Will the new administration let the pendulum swing too far in the effort to purge the perceived excesses of the past? Will they have on blinders to the continuing threat?"
Some administration officials noted that outgoing CIA Director Michael V. Hayden is on the record saying that the special interrogation tactics have been effective. They point to a white paper put out by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence titled "Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program," which attributed the waterboarding of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, better known as Abu Zubaida, to getting the first information about Khalid Sheik Mohammed's role in 9/11 and intelligence that helped capture Ramzi Binalshibh, a prominent al-Qaeda operative.
"It is a very weighty decision to shut down a program entirely, one that intelligence professionals have said is a very valuable thing," said another administration official.
In finding his way on interrogation policy, Obama will have to be mindful of several other important constituencies, including Capitol Hill. Several prominent Democratic lawmakers, including new Senate intelligence committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have publicly called for firm limits on interrogation methods, including a ban on the use of waterboarding, or simulated drowning. A bill introduced by Feinstein this week would require all American interrogators to adhere to the Army Field Manual, which prohibits an array of harsh interrogation tactics.
Even the Army Field Manual recognizes that drawing a bright line for interrogations is difficult. At one point it cautions, "Although no single comprehensive source defines impermissible coercion, certain acts are clearly prohibited."
Congress last March passed a bill similar to Feinstein's and Bush vetoed it. Thus, Obama's problem is not only whether to decide whether to prohibit the techniques via executive order, but also whether he is prepared to veto such a measure to preserve presidential prerogatives.
Obama actions will also be watched closely by the career officials at the CIA, who want to see how supportive the new president and his team will be. Former CIA officials note that all the agency's actions were authorized by Bush with legal opinions and concurrence by senior White House officials and Congress. "The Obama people can run against the Bush guys all they want, but they shouldn't run down the CIA," said one retired agency official.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010903784.html
3.
Defect Analysis and Liberalism
Paul Carlson
Liberals are on the ascendant, and conservatives are working hard to regroup. Unfortunately, many of the voters in the recent election would not be able to define either of those terms, much less describe their underlying history and principles.
What are the primary differences between liberals and conservatives?
Readers of American Thinker are familiar with many, such as groupthink versus individualism, government programs versus private charity, and good intentions versus actual results. In this column I'll endeavor to present something new.
This is not familiar territory for many readers, so let's take it in steps. Say you are a factory boss, who manufactures widgets. Your plant employs a hundred people, and accepts a dozen truckloads of raw materials per day. From your freight docks pour forth thousands of top-quality widgets.
Then some trouble develops. There are many more defective widgets than usual, and your assembly line foremen haven't isolated the problem. Your profits, if not the entire operation, are in danger. For a smart boss, the next step is to call in an expert.
One friend of mine is just such an expert, an engineering consultant who troubleshoots at factories worldwide. He'll use precise tests and measurements, general observations and psychology, and special logic and algorithms.
In our recent discussions, my friend has applied this precise engineering viewpoint to a wider situation: liberals and conservatives, and how they deal with social problems. To make this leap, one must grasp certain terms and concepts. (These ideas were first developed by a man named W. Edwards Deming.)
"Special and common causes of variation" are bone-dry engineering terms normally utilized for quality control. "Human factors" are mentioned, but only within the context of a factory and its workers.
A successful troubleshooter will soon discover the problem(s) underlying those defective widgets, and the reason(s) the factory's output has varied (dropped) from the expected standard.
It may be due to antiquated machinery. This is one type of "common cause" variation, and the solution may require the installation of expensive new machinery, or perhaps a major adjustment to the entire assembly line. Such trouble is slow to develop, and can be predicted over the long term.
However, in what is termed a "special cause" variation, the problem may instead be transient. One batch of substandard raw material, or one inattentive worker, can also cause defective widgets. That type of problem cannot be pinpointed in advance, but fortunately, a simpler (and far less costly) solution is called for. Better materials must be run through the line. A lousy worker must be retrained or let go.
These ideas of common and special causation apply to more than factories. A familiar example of "special and common" variation involves commute drive times. Traffic jams are "common" (in both an everyday and engineering sense), and have an average effect on one's commute. Your drive time will vary from day to day, but it's predictable overall. However, occasional "special" factors (again, used in both senses), such as an engine breakdown, will also affect your commute. These cannot specifically be foreseen.
Therefore, identifying a problem's cause, and type of cause, suggests the best way to accomplish your commute. You don't have to spend millions to widen the entire road when it's your engine that is broken. Repainting the road stripes will not help when an individual persists in driving while drunk.
This common/special engineering analysis can be applied to virtually every social problem, and proposed government solution.
You don't need to rejigger an entire factory every time one batch of defective material, or one careless worker, is what's actually messing up the operation. But that is the sort of thing liberals in government often attempt. They plan to alter the whole of society via massive programs, when strange glitches old and new, and quirky human foibles, are the real problem. In other words, looking toward the next four years, a plethora of unpredictable flaws will just mess up that smooth socialistic "Yes We Can" vision.
The concepts of common and special cause also work in understanding why politicians do what they do.
Liberals tend to assume that all social problems are "common," to be addressed by redesigning the whole system. They always call for some new congressional or regulatory or judicial action to impose a blanket "solution" that seldom works. Domestically, such blunt measures usually create new problems, and exacerbate others. Internationally, vague ideas about "America's image abroad" lead to naïve assumptions that a new President will make this country beloved everywhere.
Conservatives tend to assume that all social problems are "special," best handled by a specific tweak addressing that singular case. Thus the best way to fight crime is to prosecute each criminal, even though this does not address the reasons why new criminals will pop up. Internationally, terrorists are best dealt with militarily, often via pinpoint strikes, while PR specialists can worry about America's image later.
The Presidential winner's policy statements read "Obama will," over and over again, followed by glimpses of an unlikely Paradise.
Such assurances are made despite the constitutional role of Congress, and the constant influence of lobbyists, not to mention actual public opinion. Plus, this assumes Obama's proposed initiatives are flawless, which (as we've seen) they cannot be, and for multiple reasons.
To be specific, Obama's proposed energy policy can be compared to altering the raw material stream through a widget factory. The supplies (various sources of energy) are both costly and unreliable, and the national economy (the factory) tolerates no letups. Yet an eco-leftist ideology, in trumping any clear analysis, virtually guarantees failure.
Regarding education, that field is laden with ineffective workers: a massive bureaucracy plus too many lousy teachers. Rather than one difficult worker, who might be retrained, there are thousands entrenched at every level, protected by Obama-friendly teacher's unions. By their very nature, all Federal initiatives are blunt instruments, which can only mal-adjust the assembly lines that are public education, and create both "common" and "special" type problems.
The Federal government, and the President's cabinet especially, have gained unprecedented powers.
Sweeping promises have been made, and massive "solutions" will soon be implemented. The USA is about to see misguided and expensive tinkering on a huge scale. All for a "common cause" that does not exist.
Paul Carlson lives in northern California. A variety of articles and projects can be found on his web domain.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/defect_analysis_and_liberalism.html
The new rulers' new rules
Paul Jacob
In little more than a week, Barack Obama assumes the office of president of the United States and, once again, all will be right with the world.
At least, that’s how some see it. Me? I haven’t consumed any of that Kool-Aid.
It may be that Obama will bring some positive change to the federal government. But just how much harm will his big-government philosophy pile on? Coming from Chicago’s Democratic machine via less than a full term as arguably the most liberal United States senator, Obama offers mostly grist for the skeptics’ mill.
It remains unlikely that we’ll see any meaningful reform, and surely no shrinking of big government.
But remember, President Obama is not acting alone. He will have accomplices.
Though the outgoing Congress earned the lowest public approval scores in the history of such polls, soon-to-be President Obama certainly seems to be counting on the new, even worse, Congress.
Unprecedented for a president-elect, Obama made a national television address before his inauguration to urge swift action on the economy. NBC News reported, “While short on specifics, Barack Obama said that Congress needs to act fast.”
We’ve been getting this “short on specifics” stuff a lot lately. In fact, close to 100 percent of the time. Little explanation or analysis. No deliberation. No transparency. No accountability. Just hysterical (or in Obama’s case: much calmer) pleas to do something — anything!
And fast. Ándale! Ándale!
Has anyone considered the possibility that neither Obama nor Congress has a magic wand with which to wave away our economic troubles?
So far, talk of spending an eight or ninth or tenth trillion on more bailouts of failing companies and giving tax cuts to people not paying any taxes are the best things they have come up with.
Where will they get more trillions? The dough could come from us in the form of very unpopular higher taxes, but that too obviously defeats the purpose of this Dr. Frankenstein game.
More likely the money will be borrowed (please, President Hu Jintao) and then the money plus interest will be repaid by our children and grandchildren, through onerous taxes.
Or they could simply print lots of new money. Inflating the money might spur the economy for a time. [A verrrry brief time! HB] But, long-term, it would steal much of what’s left from those who have managed to save.
However Obama and Congress come up with the cash for a short-term stimulus, it will be later, always later, for the dose of fiscal discipline. Even those who remain goo-goo eyed over Obama must recognize how difficult it is to speak of fiscal discipline and Congress in the same sentence.
Sure, weeks ago this column discussed the audacity and arrogance of the old Congress taking a pay raise — but what about this new Congress?
In its first week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats changed the rules to repeal their own biggest reform from last session, scrapped term limits on powerful committee chairman and eviscerated the minority’s right to be heard.
As part of the majority’s new rules package, Democrats embraced the practice of holding votes open for hours (or days, if necessary) for leadership to twist arms to change the outcome of a floor vote. Republicans had used this tactic and Democrats had then reversed the policy upon gaining majority status. Now, the Democrats signal a shift, to mimic the most corrupt practices of the vanquished Republicans.
On committee chair term limits, Democrats did the right thing by keeping the popular limits after taking control in 2006. Now it is reported that they were just timing their unpopular power grab for later.
Those term limits are now gone, repealed, so that career politicians such as Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank can bang their powerful gavel in perpetuity. To their credit, Republicans have kept their term limits for ranking minority committee members.
The majority Democrats also made it much tougher for minority Republicans to force votes on various issues. The previous rule had allowed Republicans to embarrass Democrats by forcing votes on alternatives. Heaven forbid that Congress should consider — or vote on — more than one idea.
Republican Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio sent a letter to Pelosi saying these initial actions have “grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors.”
Boehner is right to complain, but I fear that were this “unprecedented expansion of federal power” to arrive in a more bipartisan wrapper, he wouldn't squawk. In fact, I do not recall his earnest concerns over President Bush’s many breaches of constitutional limits and common sense.
I don’t mean to be pessimistic. Just truthful.
Our republic is in trouble. We have to recognize that our economic problems are but a symptom of even bigger political problems.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2009/01/11/the_new_rulers_new_rules
Comments