Christopher Hitchens' bad news

Whether he likes it or not, please pray for Christopher Hitchens if you're so inclined. He has esophageal cancer.

I had a friend who survived this, after losing large portions of his esophagus and stomach. But he succumbed to bone cancer a year or so later, leaving behind a very young, very large family. So this strikes me as very bad news.

From the archives, the brilliant Mr. Hitchens discusses religion and Iran with "Mr. Definitely" and friends:



Most recent posts here.

Kagan answering questions about ACOG draft now

Watch here.

Hmph. That didn't amount to much. Daniel Foster transcribes:

Hatch: “Did you write that memo?”

Kagan: “With respect, I don’t think that’s what happened here.”

Kagan says “the document is certainly in my hand-writing. I don’t know if the document is the product of a conversation I had with them . . .”

Kagan says Clinton had “strong views on this issue” and favored health exceptions. “We tried over the course of the period of time when this statute was being considered. . . to get him the best medical evidence on this subject as possible.” “We tried to bring all the conflicting views to his attention.”

“What ACOG thought was . . . on the one hand they couldn’t think of a circumstance in which this procedure was the absolutely only procedure that could be used in a given case. . . but they could think of circumstances in which it was the medically best procedure . . . with the least risk attached to it.”

“We knew that ACOG thought both of these things. . .”

Really? How does that jive with the initial ACOG draft, which reportedly said this:

The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

Back to the hearings:

Kagan goes on. Hatch asks again “did you write ‘this would be a disaster’?” Kagan says yes, the disaster would be that ACOG didn’t express both parts of what it believed.

Heh. Good one.

Hatch says “this bothers me a lot,” that he know there are plenty of doctors in ACOG who did not believe partial-birth abortion was a necessary procedure. “That bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that way.”

Kagan says there is “no way” she “would have or could have” gotten ACOG to change its medical opinion.

Hatch is "troubled." Weak.

Related: Kagan made up "science" to support partial birth abortion?

Thanks to MichelleMalkin.com for linking.

Most recent posts here.

Just words

That's all Obama's got for Arizona. Andrew Malcolm:

With polls showing he's on the losing end of the public opinion tide in favor of Arizona's new illegal immigrant law, President Obama has decided to construct a wordy barrier of speeches along the insecure border issue with Mexico.

Yesiree, it's time for another speech, this one to be delivered at American University tomorrow. The straw men, misrepresentations, accusations of obstructionism and politic-playing, are being assembled as we speak by the president's crack team of middle-school speech writers.

Something tells me it won't be what Gov. Jan Brewer is waiting for.

Most recent posts here.

Kagan made up "science" to support partial birth abortion?

Well, that's sure how it looks. Let's hope someone holds her feet to the fire for an explanation of this very damning paper trail.

Read all of Shannen Coffin's NRO piece. Excerpts:

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

Years later, when President Bush signed a federal partial-birth-abortion ban (something President Clinton had vetoed), the ACOG official policy statement was front and center in the attack on the legislation. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf, one of the three federal judges that issued orders enjoining the federal ban (later overturned by the Supreme Court), devoted more than 15 pages of his lengthy opinion to ACOG’s policy statement and the integrity of the process that led to it.

Like the Supreme Court majority in the prior dispute over the Nebraska ban, Judge Kopf asserted that the ACOG policy statement was entitled to judicial deference because it was the result of an inscrutable collaborative process among expert medical professionals. “Before and during the task force meeting,” he concluded, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed” in the ACOG statement.

In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

Partial birth abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother, and Kagan and the ACOG knew it. But that finding was not acceptable. Unlimited abortion is the goal. So, it appears, Kagan took pen in hand to adjust the science:

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban.

So Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.) The judicial battles that followed led to two Supreme Court opinions, several trials, and countless felled trees. Now we learn that language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts devoted to the care and treatment of pregnant women and their children was, in the end, nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee.

Bottom line:

Miss Kagan’s decision to override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process. One must question whether her nomination to the Court would have the same effect.

John Hinderaker:

This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.

Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.

So simpatico with her president, with whom she shares a penchant for partial birth abortions and an unscrupulous ends-justify-the-means approach to using the courts to push a radical, and radically unpopular, social agenda.

Thanks in great part to Kagan's apparent fabrication, all state laws banning partial birth abortions were struck down in 2000. No one knows how many children might be alive now if it weren't for Kagan's alleged falsification. Accurate data on partial birth abortions is hard to come by; there are many reasons why a doctor might not want to own up to performing this diabolical "procedure." But low estimates put the number of victims at somewhere between 650 and 2200 babies terminated annually before the ban. I don't know how many were killed in states that had a ban in place before the 2000 decision. But would it be going too far to say, if these charges are true, Kagan lied, babies died?

And let's not forget to give some credit to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for selling their souls on this one. Truly despicable.

Someone needs to thoroughly interrogate Kagan on these documents and the part she played in legalizing and expanding the practice of partial birth abortion.

ETA: Yuval Levin:

What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as a domestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.

Cross-posted at Potluck.

Most recent posts here.

Coburn v. Kagan

I knew after yesterday's post that something interesting would emerge from the Kagan hearings, though not from her mouth. To quote Allahpundit, "So the rumors were true — something interesting did get said at today’s interminably boring hearing." Here's the video of Sen. Tom Coburn questioning Miss Kagan on the limits of Congressional power:



Miss Kagan is asked point-blank, "Do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?" She doesn't answer.

Coburn's hypothetical law sounds absurd but you can't deny that there are those who are eager to limit and control our food choices.


Most recent posts here.

Supreme bore

You really can't blame Sen. Bozo for nodding off. I know Elena Kagan can't risk uttering anything but platitudes, but the combination of vapid content and flat delivery is positively anesthetizing. Blah blah blah. Why do they bother with these hearings?

Better him than me: Daniel Foster valiantly live-blogs the hearing.

Most recent posts here.

Remembering Senator Byrd

Someone had to say it. Thank you, Jim Geraghty, for stepping up to the plate:

Remember yesterday morning when I told everyone to be on their best behavior about the death of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd? Yeah, sorry about that; I didn’t realize the epic scale of the whitewash we were going to have to endure. I got through about midmorning, when somewhere around the headline “With Byrd’s death, the era of statesmen fades” I found myself unable to resist wondering whether in his honor today all white bedsheets would be flown at half-mast.

[. . .]

“De mortuis nil nisi bonum” means roughly, “speak no ill of the dead,” and I understand the sentiment but let’s not all avert our eyes and pretend Robert Byrd was something he wasn’t.

I left out the meat in the middle so you'll have to go read Geraghty's post. And lest we forget, as Byrd is held up as the longest serving U.S. Senator ever (as if that's a good thing), that he remained in office way, way past his time. He was impaired for years on end, but enabled by his colleagues, to their shame (as if they had any), to continue in office.

Other items:

Is the Gore sexual assault story growing legs? Eleanor Clift writes that parts of the narrative have the ring of truth. And Byron York keeps it alive with a column chock-full of excerpts from the woman's account. Audio of the accuser's account has been released, and I think it does lend the written account a bit more credibility.


Napolitano: "The border is as secure as it ever was . . . You're never gonna totally seal that border." But never fear: Homeland Security will "keep evolving." Aargh.


Sen. Scott Brown comes down on the right side of a couple of huge issues. He will not support the $19 billion bank tax or the cap and trade energy tax:

Washington has no shortage of bad ideas. Even well-intentioned programs usually come wrapped up with higher taxes and fees that I refuse to support. The special interests are pushing for a national energy tax, otherwise known as cap and trade. They also want to increase red tape and regulation. For some reason, the Washington elites believe that if one opposes a national energy tax and more regulation, they must also support the Gulf oil spill. This is ludicrous.

The fact is, cap and trade will hurt the poor and working class the most and America can’t afford another tax.

Mere common sense.


Mere justice: Charlie Crist Sued For Return of Donations - Copy of Complaint Here


Fun department: Read Power Line's Scott Johnson's tribute to Frank Loesser (and Mark Steyn) here.


Thanks to MichelleMalkin.com for linking.
Most recent posts here.

Monday various & sundry

Politics:

The Elena Kagan confirmation hearings begin today. Your primer here from Michelle Malkin. The short version of what will transpire:

Beltway Republicans will put up just enough of a fight to placate grass-roots conservative activists on Kagan’s radical social views, while the nutroots will pout (but not too loudly) that Kagan isn’t enough of a liberal activist for them. And GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham, after several minutes of obligatory grandstanding mixed with obsequious suck-uppage, will cast his vote with Kagan and Obama — as he did with Sonia Sotomayor (whom he praised as “bold” and edgy”).

Ugh.


Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia has passed away. May he rest in peace. The rules on how his replacement will be chosen hinge on when the seat is declared vacant. Details here.


Pat in Shreveport calls for the resignation of Adm. Thad Allen, who defends the deployment of only 20 of 2000 U.S. oil skimmers to the Gulf. One might argue that some skimmers need to be left in place. But 99%? How is that a reasonable allocation of resources in an emergency?

Pat asks, "When does incompetence cross the line and become criminal?" Rudy Giuliani answered that one a while back at the end of this video:

A case of negligence is made on should have known, should have known, should have known. You get five of those should have knowns and you've been negligent. You've got about fifty here.

Other items:

An NHS meltdown update from Wesley Smith: Rationing drives the NHS into the absurd:

So, some seriously ill patients might get rationed out of a stay in hospital, or receive less than optimal care due to a nursing shortage, as money will be diverted to older women so they can give birth past their time? I’m sorry, but that is just nuts. Having difficulty conceiving after 40 isn’t a medical condition. It’s natural aging. But this is a reality of health care rationing–it is often driven by plain old politics.

More on motherhood in the UK: A British parenting mag editor has written that breastfeeding is creepy. Kathryn Blundell, deputy editor of Mother and Baby, declares that her breasts are for sex only, and breastfeeding means she can't get drunk when she gets the urge (sorry, Junior: priorities and all that). By her standards, childbirth must seem pretty "creepy," too. How dare that baby intrude on her erogenous zones? Heaven help the child who interrupts her beauty sleep or cuts into her me-time with his petty demands.

Once upon a time we knew that motherhood involved self-sacrifice. How does a culture work its way back from such self-centeredness? (Hat tip: Hot Air)


Most recent posts here.

Quelle arrogance!

Ed Morrissey's having a caption contest.




Most recent posts here.

Sunday music

Short and sweet. Just the Sanctus from Haydn's Little Organ Mass.



Most recent posts here.

Fetal pain and unconditional love

Dr. Frankenstein and friends in the UK have decreed that aborting babies of up to 24 weeks gestational age is a-okay. In their omniscience, a group of healers has determined that these developing babies can't yet feel pain. So killing them is just fine (if we all pretend it doesn't hurt):

LONDON — British health experts say the human fetus cannot feel pain before the age of 24 weeks, so there is no reason to change the country's abortion laws.

The government-commissioned study is a setback for anti-abortion activists, who want the country's current 24-week time limit for terminations reduced.

The study says that nerve connections in the brain are not sufficiently formed to allow pain perception before 24 weeks.

This convenient conclusion is highly disputed. A pediatric anesthesiologist testifies:

"[A]n unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation, has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain. In a fashion similar to explaining the electrical wiring to a new house, we would explain that the circuit is complete from skin to brain and back," she said.

And it's beside the point. The babies are living persons. The argument over whether pain begins at 8, 20, or 24 weeks concedes that, doesn't it?

For discussion, see Evil Can Be Painless. Snip:

We did not discover that he was autistic until he was seven. It has been difficult raising a disabled child. But we love him, and can’t imagine life without him. Especially having lost the baby before him, we would not even have considered having amnio or of aborting him had some other “non invasive” test revealed him to have a disability. Life is precious, not perfect.

Emphasis added.

But some parents do desire perfection, and in the most superficial sense. See Wesley Smith's post on eugenics as exemplified in the Beautiful People Baby service. Smith notes:

This bit of Entiltement [sic] News is not a new phenomenon, but illustrates the eugenics core that lies at the heart of facilitated reproduction.

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or plotz at the announcement of the Beautiful People sperm bank:

The Beautiful Baby service - which is also available to non-members - was created for people who want to maximize their chances of having good looking children.

Managing director Greg Hodge said: "BeautifulPeople.com has launched a fertility introduction service to help members and non-members alike procreate. There are no financial benefits for us in doing so - we are simply responding to a demand for attractive donors. Every parent would like their child to be blessed with many fine attributes, attractiveness being one of the most sought after. For a site with members who resemble Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie you can imagine the demand."

Founder Robert Hintze added: "Initially, we hesitated to widen the offering to non-beautiful people. But everyone - including ugly people - would like to bring good looking children in to the world, and we can't be selfish with our attractive gene pool."

Umm, thanks? Wesley Smith:

Shallowness R us. And it ignores the truth that standards of beauty change over time. In my youth, Marilyn Monroe was the epitome of beauty. Today, her voluptuous curves would send her to Jenny Craig! [. . .]

Bottom line: We no longer just feel entitled to a baby, but to the baby we want. This is not healthy for a loving society, for it tends to make our love for children conditional.

Bingo. Unconditional love. I've gone back into the archives in search of discussions and examples of this most important concept.

From Pope Benedict XVI:

We can love ourselves only if we have first been loved by someone else. The life a mother gives to her child is not just physical life; she gives total life when she takes the child’s tears and turns them into smiles. It is only when life has been accepted and is perceived as accepted that it becomes also acceptable. Man is that strange creature that needs not just physical birth but also appreciation if he is to subsist . . . If an individual is to accept himself, someone must say to him: “It is good that you exist” – must say it, not with words, but with that act of the entire being that we call love. For it is the way of love to will the other’s existence and, at the same time, to bring that existence forth again.

Read the Anchoress's post here.

From a post on the life of the late Christopher Nolan:

He published his first book at 15, a collection of poems appropriately titled “Dam-burst of Dreams.” His second book won Britain’s prestigious “Whitbread Book of the Year:” in 1988. It was called “Under the Eye of the Clock,” a biographical work in which he refers to himself as Joseph Meehan. At one point in the book Nolan writes of crying upon the realization that he is not like other children:

"Looking through his tears he saw [his mother] bent low in order to look into his eyes. `... Listen here Joseph, you can see, you can hear, you can think, you can understand everything you hear. You like your food, you like nice clothes, you are loved by me and Dad. We love you just as you are.' Pussing still, sniveling still, he was listening to his mother's voice. She spoke sort of matter-of-factly but he blubbered moaning sounds. His mother said her say and that was that. She got on with her work while he got on with his crying.

"The decision arrived at that day, was burnt forever in his mind. He was only three years in age but he was now fanning the only spark he saw, his being alive and more immediate, his being wanted just as he was...."
That day looked out through his eyes for the rest of his life. Comfort came in child-like notions, his clumsy body was his, but molested by mother-love he looked lollying looks at his limbs, and liked Joseph Meehan."

Read the rest of Raymond Arroyo's post on Nolan.

An excerpt from my favorite parenting book:

Children do not experience our intentions, no matter how heartfelt. They experience what we manifest in tone and behavior. We cannot assume that children will know what our priorities our: we must live our priorities. Many a child for whom the parents feel unconditional love receives the message that this love is very conditional indeed. . . . Unconditional acceptance is the most difficult to convey exactly when it is most needed: when our children have disappointed us, violated our values, or made themselves odious to us. . . . (Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers, p. 196-7)

Unconditional love from a father:

At some point, the computer froze and I had to shut it down and then it hit me. I realized what a jerk I was. Well, that's not true. I know what a jerk I am. But I realized what a jerk I was today. My seven year old wasn't upset because she got five wrong. She was scared of telling me she got five wrong. I hadn't even taken the time to notice that my seven year old had been circling me the entire afternoon and early evening. Looking to me...for something. And then quickly looking away. Even while cleaning the dishes I noticed her looking at me out of the corner of her eye. I noticed it but I didn't see it, if you know what I mean. She'd been waiting for me to say what I should've said the moment she walked out of school. That no matter what happened I love her. That no matter what happened I'm proud of her. And no matter what happened I think she's the most special seven year old in the world.

This little girl. My little girl. She was waiting for her dopey father to tell her he loved her all day and that it was just a math test. Instead he told her to circle subtraction signs.

I had to face it. I did a lot worse on my test than she did on hers. Sometimes you just think that children know how much we love them. But the harsh words we say I think somehow stick with them longer than many of our kindnesses. Our little cruelties are like splinters. They go in easily, cause pain, and they're very difficult to get out. [emphasis added]

Archbold's post here.

Unconditional love from a son. Jim Hoft, last summer, on his late mother:

This beautiful woman moved into my home in 2001. I was so blessed every day to watch her and care for her; to cook for her and clean for her. I was honored to serve her. I learned how to comb a woman's hair. I learned how to help a woman put on earrings. I learned how to care for someone else. I learned how to love more.

Most recent posts here.

Promoting illegal immigration is a full-time job

. . . for the federal government under the Obama administration. The campaign has many fronts:

FOX: Labor Dept. Offers Assistance to Illegal Immigrants Facing Wage Disparities

The announcement is part of a bilingual national awareness campaign called "We Can Help," launched in April to reach out to the nation's "low-wage and vulnerable workers." Actor Jimmy Smits and other activist celebrities are featured in the spots.

It is not clear how much the campaign costs. [. . .]

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz says he wants to know why taxpayers are being asked to spend money to ensure that illegals get assistance for fair wages while millions of unemployed Americans struggle to find jobs.

"That's insane," Chaffetz told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. "That's just unbelievable."

But the Labor Department stood by the campaign, saying in a written statement to FoxNews.com that "through Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Labor has consistently held that the country's minimum wage and overtime law protects workers regardless of their immigration status."

Also see Michelle Malkin: The U.S. Department of Illegal Alien Labor

More:

White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE:

The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue.

Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.
[. . .]

But as a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers.

He also, during his tenure as Houston police chief, criticized ICE's key program that draws on local law enforcement's support.

"There's no way you can head up an office if you don't believe in what the office is supposed to do," Curtis Collier of U.S. Border Watch, told the Houston Chronicle. "Immigration and Customs Enforcement's primary mission is to protect the American people. If this guy believes any of these programs should not be enforced, he's certainly going to be a very weak advocate for them."

Another headline: Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law


And then there's the federal government's "unprecedented and unnecessary" lawsuit against Arizona:

But even if one were to imagine that the Obama administration had a strong legal argument, there would be yet another reason not to file the lawsuit: It is completely unnecessary. Five suits have already been filed by the ACLU and their fellow travelers. The issue is already teed up for the federal courts to decide. The administration achieves nothing by launching its own litigation. Except, of course, for rallying the Democrats’ open-borders base before the 2010 elections.

Yes, the president has promised that 1200 National Guard troops will be sent to the AZ border, though Gov. Brewer is growing impatient waiting for word of their arrival. But if they ever do show up, their job will not be to secure the border.


Most recent posts here.

Friday various & sundry

What's the common thread running through so many of our current struggles? One word, beginning with 'u.' Behold the Orwellian-entitled DISCLOSE Act:

House Republican Leader John Boehner’s already declaring that the legislation will “Shred Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain.” Normally, I’d automatically dissmiss such a press release as hyperbole, but this time I’m not so sure. For one thing, the DISCLOSE Act does this:

A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.
So unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending.

Read Victor Davis Hanson's NRO column: The Law? How Quaint! Excerpt:

Now there is talk of an executive decree from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement provisions of cap-and-trade legislation that Congress will not pass. Republican senators are already worried that the administration will likewise simply begin to grant amnesty to illegal aliens en masse, without introducing such a proposal to Congress, which alone has the right and responsibility to make our laws. And the recent executive order to ban all offshore drilling in the Gulf clearly circumvented the legal process. (Does the government have the right to shut down every flight if one airplane crashes, or to mothball all nuclear plants should one leak?) Instead of putting a moratorium on the sort of deep-drilling procedure and pipe fittings that BP used, the Obama administration simply issued a blanket ban on all offshore drilling -- as if the real intent was not to allow the crisis of an oil spill to go to waste in the larger environmental effort to reduce carbon emissions.

What do all these ends-justify-the-means examples portend? Mostly, they reflect an effort by a technocratic class to implement social change through extralegal means if it finds that its agenda does not meet with public approval. In some sense, the Obamians have lost all faith that our democracy shares their vision, and so they seek to impose their exalted will by proclamation -- as if they are the new Jacobins and America is revolutionary France throwing off the old order.

Read the rest.


Lawlessness elsewhere: Venezuela Seizes 11 US Gulf Oil Rigs Off Its Caribbean Coast

Venezuela’s government has seized control of 11 oil rigs owned by U.S. driller Helmerich & Payne, which shut them down because the state oil company was behind on payments.
Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez announced that Venezuela would nationalize the Tulsa, Oklahoma-based company’s rigs. He said in a statement Wednesday that Helmerich & Payne had rejected government demands to resume drilling operations for more than a year.
Helmerich & Payne announced in January 2009 that it was stopping operations on two of its drilling rigs, because Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA, owed the company close to $100 million. It said it would shut down the rest of its rigs by the end of July as contracts expired unless PDVSA began to make good on its debts.
The company said Thursday that PDVSA’s debt was $43 million as of June 14. [. . .]
President and CEO Hans Helmerich said in a statement on Thursday the company’s position has remained clear: “We simply wanted to be paid for work already performed.”

Outright international theft. This is what happens when your president is perceived as a weakling. Any bets on how the Obama administration will respond?

And the oil gushes on. "Gobs of oil" are washing onto the Florida coastline and closing some beaches. Obama's positive spin last week was pure fabrication:

President Barack Obama told the nation last week that as much as 90 percent would soon be captured, saying the company had informed him that was how much of the oil could be kept out of the water within weeks.

"It just doesn't look like that's in the cards," said Ed Overton, a retired professor of environmental science at Louisiana State University. "We're not even close to that, and the word today is that they were capturing less than the day before. I was hoping the president knew something that the rest of us didn't know. I mean, he was talking to the big shots."

Lesson learned. Believe him at your own risk.


Unrelated but interesting, at least to me:

In Ross Douthat's column, How Divorce Spreads, he quotes from a study entitled Breaking Up is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else is Doing It Too:

We find that divorce can spread between friends, siblings, and coworkers, and there are clusters of divorces that extend two degrees of separation in the network … Interestingly, we do not find that the presence of children influences the likelihood of divorce, but we do find that each child reduces the susceptibility to being influenced by peers who get divorced.

Perhaps more children help to more firmly attach parents to their families, and to each other, and weaken their attachment to outsiders.

Douthat concludes:

There’s no escaping peer effects: If your friends or neighbors or relatives get divorced, you’re more likely to get divorced — even if it’s only on the margins — no matter what kind of shape your marriage is in. And inevitably, the ripples keep on spreading, to the next generation and beyond …

If you're interested in how excessive peer attachment affects families read Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers.


Most recent posts here.

"No workaholic"

Our Lazy President:

I’m starting to get the feeling that President Obama is no workaholic.

His much trumpeted “War on Petroleum” speech in the Oval Office last week fell flat to most listeners, regardless of political affiliation, because our “genius”, Harvard educated President made it clear to the entire world that he knew less about the Gulf spill than the average 10th grader.

What has this man been doing with his time for the past two months?

You’d think by now Obama would at least have something intelligent to say about containment booms, or sand berms, or the Jones Act, or flow rates, or the coming hurricane season and its possible effects on the cleanup effort.

Sen. George Lemieux had this to say about a recent talk with Obama: “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers (or) domestic skimmers.”

No kidding.

Bingo. Read the rest. Hat tip: The Virginian

Most recent posts here.

Is Bush to blame for Al Gore's alleged sexual assault?

Words that have never before even randomly collided in my mind or yours: Al Gore and "pubic area." But they appear in close proximity in the 73-page police report on the alleged Gore sexual assault of an Oregon masseuse in 2006. The woman's story is very detailed and very creepy.* Stacy McCain has the video report here.

The thought of Gore being massaged is bad enough, isn't it? The allegation:

The masseuse told investigators about an evening massage session during which Gore allegedly became enraged at times and tried to gain sexual favors from the woman.
“I was shocked and I did not massage beyond what is considered a safe, nonsexual area of the abdomen,” she said. “He further insisted and acted angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud.”
“I went into much deeper shock as I realized it appeared he was demanding sexual favors or sexual behaviors.” The woman said Gore grabbed her hand and shoved it toward his pubic area.
She alleged he later tried to have sex with her and began caressing her before she squirmed out of his grasp.

She claims she feared "Mr. Stone" (allegedly what he called himself -- I did not make that up) would rape her.

So, can we blame Bush for this, too, a la Sally Quinn? Emotionally crushed by the "stolen" 2000 election, was Gore merely seeking solace (allegedly) where he could find it?

Perhaps Tipper saw this coming and got out in time. Wait a few minutes for more alleged victims to surface.


At least Gore knows a friend who can help him weasel out of this. Repeat after Bill: I did not sexually assault that woman." Or this one: "It all depends on what the meaning of 'massage' is."

*Update: I've been reading the PDF. No idea whether it's true or not but it's riveting. The woman paints a picture of Gore as an unstable, predatory monster, alternating between giggles and shouted demands, and never taking no for an answer.

Cross-posted at Potluck.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy) - thanks!
Most recent posts here.

Feds order stop to sand barrier dredging

I'm not saying that the Obama administration is punting on the oil spill on purpose (though I've heard some rumblings to that effect among the citizenry). But if they were, what would they be doing differently?

The feds have ordered a stop to sand barrier construction:

The federal government's latest effort to shut down Louisiana's effort to protect the coast is to halt sand berm dredging near the Chandeleur barrier islands.

The feds are requesting that the dredging operation be moved two miles further offshore.

Yes, they have reasons I'm not competent to evaluate. But common sense tells me that if the house is on fire, you get out the fire hose and worry about water damage later. Pat Austin has the details.

Most recent posts here.

Mexico also suing Arizona

Your daily outrage: Unreal: Mexico joins lawsuits against Arizona over new immigration law

They contend it's unconstitutional. Well, it's not their constitution, but thanks for caring. Like everyone else lined up in opposition, they don't seem to have read the law, which expressly prohibits status-checking except when police have reason to believe a crime has been committed.

The brief also complains that the law “raises substantial challenges to the bilateral diplomatic relations between Mexico and the U.S.” How is that a legal issue? What a joke. In effect, they're suing for the U.S. to dissolve its southern border. Have they no faith in the Obama administration?

Mexico's brief, in the light their own immigration law, draconian by comparison to the AZ law which mirrors our federal law, has me searching the internet for the Spanish word for chutzpah. Google gives me descaro but I don't know whether that conveys the oomph of chutzpah.

I'm beginning to sense that Mexico isn't really our friend.

Allahpundit:

First, am I mistaken or don’t you need to bring some sort of identifying document with you to enter the U.S. from Mexico even for a day trip? [. . .]

Permanent residents are also required to carry their green card on them at all times — not according to Arizona law, but according to federal law. Why do I bring all this up? Because, as you may remember, the Arizona statute creates a presumption that someone is here legally if they produce any sort of federally-issued identification — like, say, a visa. Show the cop your ID and you can be on your way, in which case, why the Mexican government’s hand-wringing for its citizens who are here legally? Given the document requirements to cross the border, they’re more likely to have identification on them than a U.S. citizen is.

Read the whole thing. Unreal indeed.

Most recent posts here.

Your Chris Christie fix

Be still, my heart. Via RedState, more straight talk from the tough but lovable governor of New Jersey:



If there were a Chris Christie channel I'd consider getting cable again.

See Joseph Lawler for an update of Christie's accomplishments so far.

Chris Christie 2012? Make it 2016 and I'll jump on the bandwagon.

Related: It's time America had a fat president

Most recent posts here.

Gushing money, propaganda, and oil

Veronique de Rugy has put together a chart to demonstrate the effectiveness the massive stimulus has had on creating jobs:


But hey, the chart doesn't include all those "jobs saved." So there. Let the Recovery Summer Tour roll on.


From the 2011 HHS budget: A $500 million "Dad fund"?

The Budget also includes $500 million for a new Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The fund will provide competitive grants to States to conduct and rigorously evaluate comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs, including those that incorporate healthy marriage components and demonstrations geared towards improving child outcomes by improving outcomes for custodial parents with serious barriers to self sufficiency as a mechanism for improving outcomes for children in these families.

I don't know what that means in English but I think Doug Powers gets the gist:

What!? I don’t trust a sentence that uses the word “outcomes” three times. The more they distribute “outcome,” the more they redistribute “income.”

More waste: Obama's new oil spill commission needn't bother going through the motions. Charles Krauthammer:

[Y]ou know as well as I do, you give me the power to appoint a commission, I can guarantee the result in advance, you can write the report in advance. . . . The majority are committed environmentalists who we know what they're gonna recommend. . . . I'm not sure how specific it will be but you know it will be hostile to oil, to fossil fuels, to any kind of increased exploration, on of them have already come out right now in the middle of the crisis against drilling in the arctic which would be safer, or drilling in other places off shore in shallower water which would be safer as well.

But they have to justify the $15 million Obama thinks they need for office supplies or something.


If true, this is beyond negligent: Sen. LeMieux of Florida says he was told by President Obama that he can't send skimmers to affected states because they might be needed where they are, in case there's an oil spill. LeMieux says there are 2000 skimmers in the U.S. and only 20 are being used in the Gulf; the others haven't been requested by the feds.



And the gushing goes on, at a heavier pace, perhaps, than previously reported:

US outrage mounted against BP as the oil spill reached its two-month mark and an internal BP document showed as many as 100,000 barrels of oil could be gushing daily into the Gulf of Mexico.

Shame on Mika Brzezinski:

Mika could be seen reading from her notes during exchanges with former GE CEO Jack Welch, who was critical of the PBO's handling of the spill. After repeated ribbing from Welch and Joe Scarborough over her use of White House talking points, Mika came clean . . .

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.

If Brzezinski believes Giuliani had his facts wrong, have her book a White House official to straighten things out. But for Mika to be collaborating directly with the Obama admin in mounting a defense is unseemly at best. Then again, credit Mika for saying out loud what surely happens with many others behind the scenes.

I'd give up Morning Joe if I ever watched it.


What's Obama doing today?

He'll twist the arms of health insurers, pressuring them to run themselves out of business:

President Obama this morning will convene a meeting with health insurers and state insurance commissioners in the Roosevelt Room at the White House to discuss "the need to work together to implement the new law and to fairly deliver its immediate benefits to consumers by avoiding unjustified premium increases," the White House says.

Unjustified according to Obama, who sees their very existence as unjustified.

Following the meeting the president will deliver remarks in the East Room, to mark the 90-day anniversary of signing the health care bill into law.

Yeah, that 90-day anniversary is a big one. Let's observe it with more lies about what Obamacare will deliver.

The president will speak about the "work being done to deliver the benefits and cost savings of the new law to the American people," the White House says.

Mr. Obama is expected to announce the implementation of key new benefits within the health care system.

It matters little that the costs will rise and the quality and accessibility of medical care will fall under Obama's law.

Later, the president will have a series of closed-door meetings, starting with lunch with Vice President Biden, then an Oval Office meeting with Secretary of Defense Gates, followed by a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room.

In the evening, the president will host an LGBT Pride Month event, where he is expected to deliver brief remarks. Invited guests include elected officials, state and local community leaders, and LGBT Americans from communities across the country -- including many youth -- who have stood up for equality, the White House says.

I'm not observing Pride Month. I'm with Father Z on this one.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy) - thanks!
Most recent posts here.

If Obama ain't happy ain't nobody happy

Sharpen the saw. All work and no play makes Barry a dull boy. Supply your own get-out-of-work-justifying adage.

Not only does Obama need his down-time; we need him to knock himself out on the links every weekend. White House spokesman Bill Burton:

I don’t think that there’s a person in this country that doesn’t think that their president ought to have a little time to clear his mind. . . . I think that a little time to himself on Father’s Day weekend probably does us all good as American citizens that our president is taking that time.

How selfless of him.

Pleeze.

As for "A little time to clear his mind," -- he golfed from 1:00 to 6:00. In withering, August-like heat. With Joe Biden. Methinks he might be avoiding something. Like his job.

Also not sure how five hours with Joe could clear anyone's mind, unless brainlessness is contagious.

And no fair playing the Father's Day card. He does this all the time. No one's suggesting he not spend time with his kids on Father's Day.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy) - thanks!
Most recent posts here.

Get ready to lose your insurance

In the next three years, 51% of Americans who are insured through their employers are projected to lose the coverage they have now. Them's the breaks in the Obamatime.

Sen. John Barrasso on the president's favorite promise/lie about Obamacare:

"I want to talk to you today about the promises that the President has made about the health care bill. And as we now know, are broken promises.

“What a difference a year makes. One year ago today the President went to the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago. He spoke to the doctors there, but was speaking to doctors as well as their patients about what he wanted to do with health care.

“The President said ‘If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.’ He then said, ‘if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.’ He said, ‘No one will take it away, no matter what.’

“Well here we are--it’s a year later.

“Last September the President said, ‘Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.’

“And then at the town hall with the seniors just last week, he said ‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’

“Well on Friday, the Associated Press reported that in just three years, a majority of workers in this country, 51 % will be in plans subject to new Washington requirements. 51% of Americans will not be able to keep what they have, keep what they like, keep what they want.

“Well you say, that’s the Associated Press, what do the real words say? So I brought to you what was released on Monday.

“The new regulations included all the interim final rules for group health plans and health insurance coverage under the bill. This came out through the Internal Revenue Service.

“It’s interesting it’s the Internal Revenue Service who’s writing these, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“If you turn to page 54, there is a table talking about how many people will lose the coverage that they have now that they like and that they want. And for all employer plans through 2013, 51%, a majority of Americans who are receiving their health care through their employer, will not be able to keep the plan they want, to keep the plan they like.

“A complete violation of the promise the President made to the American people.”

I'm so tired of Obama. What else would you like to talk about?

Most recent posts here.

Obama to Kyl: If we secure the border, GOP won’t have any reason to support reform

According to Sen. Jon Kyl, Obama made this naked political statement in a private conversation:

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
[emphasis added]

You might have trouble squaring that with Obama's Saturday address, in which he accused the GOP of placing politics above the needs of the American people:

"What we need is a willingness in Washington to put the public’s interests first – a willingness to score fewer political points so that we can start solving more problems," Obama said. "That’s why I was disappointed this week to see a dreary and familiar politics get in the way of our ability to move forward on a series of critical issues that have a direct impact on people’s lives." [. . .]

"Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we’ve got an obligation that goes beyond caring about the next election. We have an obligation to care for the next generation," he said. "So I hope that when Congress returns next week, they do so with a greater spirit of compromise and cooperation. America will be watching."

By 'compromise' and 'cooperation' he means sell out and surrender.

After a year and a half of Obama, nothing is drearier, or has become more familiar, than his cries of obstructionism whenever the opposition has the temerity to stand with the people and resist his consistently unpopular agenda. His pretense of a desire to work with the GOP has been so thoroughly discredited by his actions that you almost wonder why he still goes through the motions. Habit, I guess. But very few people are listening.

Obama will undoubtedly deny, or spin, Kyl's account.

Most recent posts here.

Happy Father's Day

to all you dads out there. The world needs you more than ever.

Following is a rerun of last year's post. Next year I'll call it a tradition.


Mark Twain, Old Times on the Mississippi
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.

Nat King Cole
I felt something impossible for me to explain in words. Then, when they took her away, it hit me. I got scared all over again and began to feel giddy. Then it came to me... I was a father.


Harry S Truman
I have found the best way to give advice to your children is to find out what they want and then advise them to do it.

Al Unser, Jr.
Dad taught me everything I know. Unfortunately, he didn't teach me everything he knows.

Spike Milligan
My father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic.

Jimmy Piersal, on how to diaper a baby
Spread the diaper in the position of the diamond with you at bat. Then, fold second base down to home and set the baby on the pitcher's mound. Put first base and third together, bring up home plate and pin the three together. Of course, in case of rain, you gotta call the game and start all over again.

Laurence Sterne (Tristram Shandy)
I wish either my father or my mother, or indeed both of them, as they were in duty both equally bound to it, had minded what they were about when they begot me.

Mozart
Directly after God in heaven comes a Papa.

Chinese Proverb
If a son is uneducated, his dad is to blame.

Red Buttons
Never raise your hand to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected.

Anonymous
Small boys become big men through the influence of big men who care about small boys.

Euripides
To a father growing old nothing is dearer than a daughter.






Most recent posts here.

More of the same from Obama

Same old, same old. Embarrassingly bad speeches, taxpayer-funded campaign rallies, tall tales about jobs "created or saved," disregard for people who work for a living, and more not-resting.

First, Mark Steyn on our ineffectual president and his latest god-awful speech:

Excellent. The president directed his Nobel Prize–winning Head of Meetings to assemble a meeting to tackle the challenge of mobilizing the assembling of the tackling of the challenge of mobilization, at the end of which they directed BP to order up some new tackle and connect it to the thingummy next to the whachamacallit. Thank you, Mr. President. That and $4.95 will get you a venti oleaginato at Starbucks. [. . .]

When he did get specific, he sounded faintly surreal. “As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows.” Energy-efficient windows? That’s a great line — if Obama’s auditioning to play himself on Saturday Night Live parodies.

And hang on, isn’t this the same guy who was promising to start “kicking ass” just a few days ago? You may find yourself recalling the moment in the film In and Out when Kevin Kline is trying to master the How to Be Manly audiotape and accidentally says, “What an interesting window treatment.”

That's okay. There are other ways to appear tough. Like using expletives! The kick-a$$ comment kinda backfired, but the fourteen year-olds who program the teleprompter retain their faith in the power of bad language to enhance one's authority. Maybe that's why the White House can't let go of Biden's pre-adolescent bleep:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Trumpeting the 10,000th road project funded by his Recovery Act, President Obama borrowed two of three words made famous in March by Vice President Biden.

This is a "big....deal," said Mr. Obama, pausing for effect between the two words between which Biden had inserted an expletive in an overheard whisper three months ago.

"Today I return to Columbus to mark a milestone on the road to recovery," the president said. "That's worth a big round of applause."

The only BFD worthy of note at the Columbus campaign stop, complete with construction workers in full costume - not to be confused with all the construction workers who were forced to take an unpaid day off because of El Supremo's visit - were the lies the president told about the stimulus:

"More than 100,000 Ohioans are at work today as a result of these steps," he said.

Really?

House GOP Leader John Boehner, who represents Ohio's 8th Congressional District, said the administration's stimulus program has fallen short of its promises. He cited new numbers from the Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services that showed the state's unemployment rate "remained above 10 percent for the 14th consecutive month in May:"

The White House yesterday launched a campaign called "Recovery Summer," in conjunction with thousands of new jobs programs funded by the Recovery Act being initiated. But Boehner portrays the campaign as bogus.

"This will be no 'recovery summer' for the more than 100,000 Ohioans who have lost their jobs since the 'stimulus' was enacted," he said in a written statement meant to undermine Mr. Obama's visit.

Mark Knoller appended the costs of the taxpayer-funded Columbus trip to his report:

The trip Columbus probably cost taxpayers between $500,000 and $1 million.

Air Force One alone bills out at $100,000 per hour, and the round trip is nearly two hours. Adding to the cost are military aircraft to carry limos and secret service vehicles, Marine One on standby, Secret Service, local police and other factors.

And this road show is going to go on all summer, with two dozen stops planned. So multiply Knoller's estimates by 24. Because it's easy come, easy go, when the taxpayers are footing the bill.

And let those constructions workers, and their kids, eat cake.

Meanwhile, Obama takes in a ballgame.

Most recent posts here.

Music break: Pick Yourself Up

Enjoy:



Related post from way back when: Pick yourself up, dust yourself off . . .

Most recent posts here.

Obama can't lead in a crisis

He's too busy looking for an a$$ to kick and covering his own.

And his inability to lead will be his political undoing, though God only knows how much damage he'll do before his exit. Behold this ABC News headline:

WHO'S IN CHARGE? Oil Spill: Against Gov. Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard

Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

"It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

Coast Guard Orders Barges to Stop

So why stop now?

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

"We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Louisiana Governor Couldn't Overrule Coast Guard

The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns. [emphasis added]

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.

[. . .]

Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean boom tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline.

The Coast Guard went all the way to Bahrain to find it, but when it came time to deploy it?

"It was picked up and moved to Louisiana," Riley said today.

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

This is your leaderless, bloated, many-tentacled nanny-state in action. Make that inaction.

Now we know for sure: Obama can't lead in a crisis. And though this disaster is bad, worse things could happen. The world has never been a more dangerous place.

How safe do you feel under this administration?

PS: If you happen to come across any missing Afghan military "with security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations," please let the FBI know. But don't panic. A DOD official said it may be "more of an immigration concern than a national security threat." Phew.

Related: Giuliani on Obama's negligence

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy) - thank you.
Most recent posts here.

This just in: Bigfoot is a blond

Who knew?



"Instead of them, (there was) him. The thing was 10 feet tall with beautiful hair, yellowish hair and a yellow beard," said Peeler.

Jim Geraghty has a special take on this sighting.


Most recent posts here.

Giuliani on Obama's negligence

Must-see TV. It's Rudy Giuliani and others discussing Obama's negligence in handling the gusher. Mika defends Obama, pointing out that he can't magically plug the hole [sigh], but according to Giuliani and the panel, Obama has not reached out to the experts who should be there, helping BP. Appalling.

I'll embed this clip later if I can.

Here you go:


Most recent posts here.

"All the legality of a car-jacking"

Obama has complained more than once that his power is not unlimited. But he doesn't let that stop him. The American Spectator brings us another must-read on Obama's disregard for those pesky legal limits to his executive power. He swats them away like gnats:

George Neumayr: The Oilers vs. the Stealers

Obama now moves to mop up the Gulf spill with a shredded Constitution. His demand that BP essentially hand over a blank check to the U.S. government has all the legality of a car-jacking.

The Democrats don't even bother to conceal the crassness of this demand, saying casually that they will manufacture the legal authority for the shakedown sometime in the future. Just seize the money, their attitude goes, and we'll write the "legislation" to justify the theft later.

Unfortunately, no one will be able to hold the Obama administration accountable for the destruction it's causing:

BP obviously invited all of this through its gross incompetence, but what if the same "lost wages" standard applied to the Obama administration? It, too, is busy destroying the "way of life" for workers in multiple industries, but in its case that's not even an accident; it is a deliberate plan.

Which federal government office should coal and oil rig workers show up at to retrieve their lost wages once Obama's energy laws crippling those industries pass? Obama offers these workers the consolation of a "clean energy" job in the future. That's very thoughtful of him. These workers can look forward to the prospect of a job, or at the very least a generous interview opportunity for a job, at wind farms several states away from their homes maybe a decade from now.

Read whole thing.

Obama's six-month drilling ban, which will destroy countless livelihoods in the Gulf region, is held up by the administration as a decision based on science. Far from it, says the WSJ, and the scientists who supposedly signed off on it:

As these columns reported last week, the opposite is true. In a scathing document, eight of the "experts" the Administration listed in its report said their names had been "used" to "justify" a "political decision." The draft they reviewed had not included a six-month drilling moratorium. The Administration added that provision only after it had secured sign-off. In their document, the eight forcefully rejected a moratorium, which they argued could prove more economically devastating than the oil spill itself and "counterproductive" to "safety." [. . .]

Ken Arnold, an engineer and consultant, said the changes [to the document] went beyond just the drilling moratorium. The Interior draft he looked at included timelines for each safety recommendation. The "bulk" of those recommendations, he explained, were all ones that could be done within 30 days. And most of the longer-term provisions would result in only "marginal increases in safety."

Yet when the final report came out, the timelines he saw had been removed, no doubt because they argued against the necessity of a six-month moratorium. Mr. Arnold adds that the Administration's decision to allow industry to continue drilling "gas injection wells"—which, he says, are no more risky than production wells—only shows the moratorium makes "no sense."

"This was a political call; this was not a technical call," says Mr. Arnold. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has since testified that the call was his. But Robert Bea, from the University of California at Berkeley, who also reviewed the report, told us Interior had sent him a letter that "stated clearly that [the moratorium] had been inserted at the request of the White House." Mr. Bea pointed out that the Department of Interior is more than equipped to target and shut down specific Gulf operations that might offer safety concerns. There was no call for a moratorium "for industry as a whole." [emphasis added]

Read the rest. This isn't about safety. The experts contend that it's actually safer to keep oil rigs operational rather than discontinuing use and later restarting them. "[Mr. Arnold] notes BP was in the process of abandoning its well when the blowout happened."

Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media care about this lie?

Obama's bloodless political decision to suspend drilling will have many, many victims. They've pleaded with the president, to no avail. It's a terrible decision in itself. What's worse is that it is based on a deliberate deception: the report was altered by the administration to support the desired result.

It's tedious to keep invoking "if this had been Bush," but if the wrong party had perpetrated this kind of deception the media would have elevated it to an impeachable offense. And frankly, the repercussions of this are far more serious than dirty tricks of the Nixonian or Clintonian varieties, or the cover-ups of either.

Tens of thousands of people are getting the rug pulled out from under their lives. It's unconscionable, and more reprehensible because the president's motives are purely political.

The corruption of the administration, and the effective collusion by the liberal media, are breathtaking to behold.

In case you missed it, see Ben Stein's Our Caudillo President.

Exit question: He's got two years left. How far will he go?

ETA: See William Jacobson for the legal case against Obama's overreaching and why BP doesn't mind.

Cross-posted in the Green Room.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy) - thanks!

Most recent posts here.

"The Duce in the White House"

Ben Stein's must-read of the day:

But to create specific enactments and actions without any authority -- now Mr. Obama's specialty -- is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me. These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further than Barack "I Am The Law" Obama.

Is there anyone in Congress to stop him? Is there anyone in a black robe to stop him? Or is everyone already too scared to challenge the Duce in the White House?

Only time will tell. He's got 2+ years left to rule. How far will he push it?

Cross-posted at Potluck

Most recent posts here.