The day’s top political news:
Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Says Oil to Reach $75 a Barrel
George Bush unilaterally sent the price of gas at the pump crashing down by cancelling the federal ban on off shore drilling, thus sending a clear signal of US commitment to become energy independent.
Obama’s administration reversed Bush’s action, and prices are headed back up to the levels of last summer – some of which reached $4 a gallon.
“We’ll get there eventually,” Minister al-Naimi told reporters in Rome where he will attend meetings with energy ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations. “The trick is keeping it between $70 and $80. It will be achieved as demand rises and the minister, Naimi says he will recommend OPEC members “stay the course” at their meeting in Vienna on May 28. Saudi Arabia is the biggest and most influential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which produces about 40 percent of the world’s oil.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awtQr3leXiOk&refer=worldwide
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longtime critic of Beijing's rule over Tibet and its human rights record, has arrived in China for a trip said to be focused on energy and climate change.
Given her raging fiasco in calling the CIA liars, and her woeful attempt to stonewall reporters and the nation by refusing to honestly discuss her allegations, Pelosi very urgently needed an escape abroad.
US embassy spokeswoman Susan Stevenson confirmed Pelosi had arrived in Shanghai but could not say who the top US official was going to meet in the country's financial hub.
Pelosi is scheduled to attend a clean energy forum in Beijing on Tuesday along with Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other details of her itinerary were not immediately known.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090524/wl_asia_afp/chinausclimaterightscongresslead_20090524135128
British banks revolt against Obama tax plan
British banks and stockbrokers may refuse to take on American clients if new international tax proposals outlined by President Obama are passed.
The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients.
The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.
Opinion:
Sorry, but I get really upset seeing politicians who neither respect nor honor our military, exploiting the holiday designed to pay homage to our heroes.
Face it. There are a lot of Democrat politicians who hate our military.
We saw it from Bill Clinton – a man who ran from honest military service like a scalded dog, and we have seen it from Democrat Senate Leader, Harry Reid, when he unilaterally surrendered to the radical Islamic terrorists we are fighting in the Global War on Terror.
Nancy Pelosi, of course, is famous for having 40 times tried to pull the rug out from under our troops under fire in combat by cancelling their funding. Now Pelosi slanders our intelligence people.
Barack Obama, of course, has never served, and his distaste for our military is more than obvious. For far too many Democrats, the outrageous sentiments of such locales as Frisco and Berkeley are the norm.
Even those Democrats who have served conspire against our military – with Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania heading the list. Murtha was in the Marine reserves long enough to claim retirement, but spent all but a short time in the states. When he went to Vietnam, it was for a desk job. Yet, he bitterly slandered US Marines who were actually in combat, going so far as to accuse them of murdering civilians -- a charge that proved dead wrong. All the Marines Murtha accused were exonerated in court.
Of course, we also have John Kerry who conveniently has scuttled away to China this Memorial Day. Kerry returned from Vietnam and became a radical opponent of the war, beginning with an outrageous appearance in the Capitol in which he slandered those with whom he claimed he fought. Kerry went on to engage in anti war protests among those who urged the Communists to fight on in Vietnam, even as the Communists were prepared to sue for peace. The Kerry-Jane Fonda types thus prolonged the Vietnam war for an additional eight years. Their actions are responsible for the deaths of thousands of our military.
Kerry did more. I personally witnessed his leading an antiwar demonstration on the Mall in Washington – a demonstration featuring a live broadcast from Hanoi, chanting of Communist slogans, and a sea of waving Communist flags. I call that an act of treason, but, perhaps, that’s just me.
I drew a long straw and missed actual combat.
I was an RB-47 pilot on a lead combat crew in SAC – the old Strategic Air Command.
In a sense, we were in combat constantly – having to remain ready to fly “The Mission” at the drop of a hat. We had our targets and trained on them. We even had information on those we might find useful in escaping should we be shot down. We had to allways notify others regarding where we were and where we could be reached (in a day long before cell phone convenience) at all times. We knew that at any moment in those days, WWIII could break out and we had to be fully prepared.
General Curtis LeMay would have it no other way.
Nine of us were checked out as crew members, the summer of 1957. We then flew a mission that took us and about 2,000 other US air crews to within the coast of the Soviet Union – the strategic point of the mission was never offered.
Meanwhile, two of our group of nine, were shot down by Soviet Mig Fighters over the Baltic Sea in a special, secret, version of the B-47. Four of the crew died, two, my friends, were picked up by the Communists and kept imprisoned in Moscow for a year and a half until being traded (along with U-2 Pilot Gary Powers) for Soviet Spy Rudolph Abel.
I chose not to sign up as a career officer – but many of my friends did so, and I have always saluted their services and questioned whether I should have followed a different course given the reality of the world at the time.
Some Democrats, such as old time DNC Finance guy Terry McAuliffe, openly insulted and denigrated our Reserves and National Guard. His disgusting remarks were brought on by the liberal assault on George Bush. Democrats did their best to attack the Bush military career – attacks that were nothing but bald faced lies. Fortunately, we have Dan Rather to thank for ending the debate. Rather’s fraudulent attack was demolished and proven totally phony. Rather was retired in disgrace.
I was impressed and quite proud of the first Air Assault helicopter forces that took a new approach to warfare and tactics from Fort Benning to Vietnam. They carried on the heroic traditions of our military – despite the back biting and opposition from Democrats.
Ronald Reagan won the Cold War – even as many Democrats in Congress were not supporting our position. He had the proper strategy “we win, they lose” – far far better and more effective than the Democrat alternative of cut, run and surrender.
Republicans have been steadfast in their support of our military, as have pro-Republican and other conservative groups such as the American Legion. Meanwhile, Democrats have embraced radical anti military groups such as Code Pink, and Moveon.org.
There IS a difference and as we continue enduring and contemplating the threat to our society and culture posed by radical Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and that difference should be kept in our minds every day.
We owe our liberty and our freedoms to those who were willing to go in harms way and confront our enemies – from the days of the Revolution, until this very day. It is them we should salute and honor.
But pardon me if I express a bit of personal outrage over hypocrites who pay lip service on holidays such as this, then return to undercutting and betraying our military the rest of the year.
Buddy
The Day’s top Blogs:
1.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
No Class
Power Line ^
John Hinderaker
I've never thought much of Barack Obama's policies, and I'm starting not to think much of him as a human being. Today he continued his gratuitous and graceless attacks on his predecessor in the inappropriate context of Memorial Day:
Our fighting men and women - and the military families who love them - embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.
And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear - and all who have worn - the proud uniform of our country.
(NOTE I would readily concede it may be possible for a liberal Democrat to be patriotic, but – given statements by Pelosi and the Hapless Reid -- the burden of proof has shifted substantially.)
Barack Obama, the soldiers' friend! As ( Chris Stirewalt) notes:
It gets little notice, but even to this day Bush makes calls on wounded veterans at military hospitals, corresponds with families of fallen service members and gives his own money to veterans charities. In office, Bush hugely increased funding for veterans programs and worked relentlessly to improve the lot of ordinary troops.
It would be interesting to know how much of his own money Barack Obama has given to veterans' charities over the years. I'd hazard a guess: zero.
Obama's incessant attacks on the Bush administration tell us nothing about former President Bush, but a great deal about Barack Obama: the man has no class.
2.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/21/barney-frank-lies-about-acorn
Barney Frank Lies About ACORN
Matthew Vadum
House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) lied to Lou Dobbs on national television the other night but no one seems to have noticed.
On the May 18 edition on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) said she was worried about the fact that ACORN and other organizations would "have access potentially to $8.5 billion" in federal funds.
ACORN, which Bachmann noted has received about $53 million in federal money since the early 1990s, has "a pattern of indictment for voter fraud," she said. "It's very concerning. No organization has a right to federal taxpayer money."
(NOTE Vote fraud and theft is nothing new to Democrat politicians. For decades, they have exploited such groups as Black Southern voters in scams that have, on occasion, even used Church buses to carry voters to polls to vote for fraudulently registered or mythical voters. Greenville, Alabama is notorious for such fraud and theft. ACORN is taking such an example nationwide and has found co conspirators in or government to funnel money to them to carry it out. In many ways, ACORN’s scandal is more destructive than some of our financial fiascos.)
During the heated discussion that followed, longtime ACORN ally Frank said, "the notion that they're eligible for $8 billion is nonsense." A moment later Frank, who appeared last year in one of the group's promotional videos on YouTube called "ACORN Grassroots Democracy Campaign," repeated his mantra.
"But it's not $8 billion," he said.
Bachmann, whose provision blocking ACORN from receiving funding in a recent mortgage reform bill was stripped out at the urging of Frank, has previously said that ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could have a shot at pocketing up to $8.5 billion this year.
She's correct. I am the researcher who came up with the $8.5 billion figure.
Let's break the $8.5 billion down.
The relevant fiscal provisions are buried deep in the $800 billion-plus stimulus package now known formally as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or Public Law 111-5 and in the $47.5 billion proposed fiscal 2010 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The stimulus legislation originally set aside $5.2 billion that could flow directly or indirectly into the coffers of ACORN and its liberal friends. The $5.2 billion was chopped down to $3 billion in the version of the bill that President Obama signed into law on February 17. The $3 billion consists of $2 billion in funds set aside for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and $1 billion in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).
CDBG is good old-fashioned graft. Local politicians of both parties adore CDBG because it is flexible. The program gives them wide latitude when spending grant money and allows local leaders to use federal dollars on local projects that they wouldn't dream of asking local taxpayers to fund. In the words of Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl, CDBG "serves as little more than a congressional slush fund for favored interests...it funds local projects that local governments would not spend their own tax dollars on."
ACORN loves CDBG because it is especially adept at extracting CDBG funds from local governments.
In addition to the $3 billion available in the stimulus package, the proposed HUD budget for the fiscal year that begins October 1 provides $1 billion for the affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds that could in theory find their way to ACORN and other liberal groups.
ACORN acknowledged at page 47 of its 2006 year-end report that it expected to be able to receive funds from "a housing trust fund" that would "make funding available for our development program." The housing trust fund ACORN was hoping for was not enacted until 2008 as part of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac rescue bill.
But the funding formula in the legislation enacted called for Fannie and Freddie to contribute to the housing trust fund out of profits, and it doesn't look like the two government-sponsored enterprises will be able to pay into the fund anytime soon. Adding new money to the fund through the HUD budget is an excellent way to roll out the goodies for loyal supporters in left-of-center political advocacy groups such as ACORN.
Moreover, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau wrote on these cyber pages last June 17, there is no guarantee that the trust fund monies will find their way to their intended recipient. The housing trust fund "is almost set up from the beginning to be diverted to purposes other than affordable housing," he wrote.
The legislation contains few safeguards to ensure the money is spent on affordable housing and has so many holes in it that "would allow the money to be easily siphoned off to liberal activist groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for lobbying and political campaigning."
Federal lawmakers have known about ACORN's unorthodox financial practices, including its use of government resources to promote legislation and its commingling of funds within its network of affiliates.
A congressional report noted that there was "apparent cross-over funding between
ACORN, a political advocacy group and ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), a non profit, AmeriCorp [sic] grantee" that is a major affiliate of ACORN.
The government-funded AmeriCorps, which promotes public service, suspended AHC's funding "after it was learned that AHC and ACORN shared office space and equipment and failed to assure that activities and funds were wholly separate."
The report noted that, "AmeriCorps members of AHC raised funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities, and gave partisan speeches. In one instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to assist the [Clinton] White House in preparing a press conference in support of legislation." ("Report on the Activities of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities During the 104th Congress," Report 104-875, January 2, 1997)
It's impossible to figure out where all of ACORN's money goes. As the Employment Policies Institute noted in a report: "Because it operates a virtual self-contained economy, ACORN entities exchange millions of dollars every year for goods and services. The scant financial documents available for public inspection paint a picture of a spider web of ACORN-run organizations that trade loans, leases, payments, and grants."
Congresswoman Bachmann is right to be worried about ACORN getting its hands on federal tax dollars.
Given its long history of electoral fraud and unorthodox accounting practices it shouldn't get even a penny of federal money.
3.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/obama_vs_cheney_man_vs_manchil.html
Obama vs. Cheney: Man vs. Manchild
Rick Moran
It was an extraordinary moment for our times. Two men with radically opposing viewpoints gave speeches on national security at roughly the same time and addressed most of the same subjects.
One, former Vice President Dick Cheney. The other, our current President Barack Obama. While it is difficult to be objective about the content of both speeches, a couple of general observations about the style and tone of the addresses can be made based on long standing principles of good speechmaking without resorting to (too much) partisanship.
I found the contrasting styles of the speeches fascinating. Cheney - elder statesman, experienced in government and politics - gave a speech that was a classic debaters' defense of Bush era policies as well as a straightforward tour d'horizon listing the threats we face an (sic) the nature of our enemies. Cheney's appeal was to the head, not the heart.
Obama, on the other hand, gave a speech he could have given a year ago during the campaign. High minded but defensive - almost as if he were responding to a campaign faux pas:
The third decision that I made was to order a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Note the appeal to sympathy and evasion of responsibility. Obama's speech is peppered with these little emotional appeals for understanding which is not only unseemly for a president but only serves to highlight his confusion and refusal to place national security above the plane of rhetoric and "values" and treat it like the hard headed, real world responsibility that it must be if we are to stay safe.
Cheney cooly dissected most of Obama's arguments, praising the president for some of his actions but pointing out in no uncertain terms that the president's starry eyed view of the threats we face as well as his plans with regard to Guantanamo do not make us safer:
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
Note how Cheney cuts through the clutter and gets to the heart of the matter. He does it by appealing to logic and reason, not emotion. Even his frequent mentions of 9/11 during the speech were contextual and not designed to elicit an emotional reaction. It's what Obama failed to do in his speech. His context was "cleaning up the Bush mess," rather than fighting and winning the War on Terror.
There was nothing radically wrong with Obama's speech stylistically - if, as I said, he were still running for president. It flowed nicely. It laid out the liberal narrative on torture and Guantanamo smoothly. The frequent breaks for applause proved that his appeal to emotion worked quite well.
But the speech itself was appalling. It sounded whiny in places and extremely defensive. And this part sent chills down my spine:
National security requires a delicate balance. One (sic) the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security -- for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.
Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.
In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.
I don't think I've ever seen such a narrow, self serving definition of government secrecy nor a lamer excuse for violating it. The same argument was made for opposing the Terrorist Surveillance Program; terrorists already know we listen to them so what's the big deal?
(NOTE: Face it – Obama is reading a speech almost certainly written by people who reflect the thinking and philosophy of radical places such as Berkeley and Frisco. They have no sincere feelings of patriotism, no honest understanding of our military, and continue the Democrat heritage of the past generation of clinging to a single strategy for any and all our military conflicts: cut, run and surrender.)
Cheney, to say the least, is not impressed:
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see - including the enemy - let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
Cheney knows full well it is stupidity and folly to "assume" your enemy "already knows" something so it is safe to release classified information. You never know what value the enemy will receive from such releases and besides, why take the chance that they can get anything that would help them?
For Obama, his "feel good" national security policy requires that it doesn't matter if the enemy gains an advantage, only that we adhere to his idea of "American values" - which wouldn't mean very much to dead Americans who were killed due to his frightening naivete and stupidity.
These were two speeches that featured competing world views, competing visions of America, and competing ideas on how to deal with the threats that face us. Cheney's statesmanlike address contrasted with Obama's campaign-style, defensive talk. One appealed to the head, the other the heart. One was delivered by a man, the other a man-child.
Dick Cheney is emerging as the elder statesman of the Republican party and the goto guy on critiquing Obama's national security policy. Let's hope he is accorded the opportunity to comment often.
Comments