Revealed: White House interrogated Somali jihadi for two months on Navy ship without Miranda warnings

My favorite take on this is Michael Goldfarb’s, who calls it a near-parody of Obama’s penchant for ducking tough decisions by dismissing them as “false choices.” Are you opposed to secret prisons for jihadis? Are you also concerned that federal criminal procedures might be too soft to obtain vital intel?

Well, have I got a compromise for you.

The U.S. military captured a Somali terrorism suspect in the Gulf of Aden in April and interrogated him for more than two months aboard a U.S. Navy ship before flying him this week to New York, where he has been indicted on federal charges…


“What we’re seeing in this case is a government that is conflicted about the legal nature of its counterterrorism operations,” said John Sifton, a human rights attorney with extensive experience in detainee cases.

“On the one hand, it detains persons indefinitely, without access to counsel, using questionable Bush-era interpretations of the laws of war. On the other hand,” he said, “it embraces a more sophisticated approach, by indicting suspects, knowing that the Justice Department is better suited to prosecute them than the military.”…

Warsame was questioned aboard the ship because interrogators “believed that moving him to another facility would interrupt the process and risk ending the intelligence flow,” one senior administration official said.

True to recent unilateral form, knowing that a fuss would be made about sending jihadis to prisons on mainland America, the White House didn’t even notify Congress that they were transferring this guy to the U.S. for trial until he was already on his way. Cue the angry letter from Republican senators, soon to end up in a WH trash can.

As for Warsame’s treatment, he was caught on April 19 and immediately locked up on a military ship as a de facto POW. He was questioned for weeks, without a lawyer present and surrounded by U.S. sailors, about Al Qaeda/Shabab operations in Somalia. At some point the questioning ended and he was left alone for a few days. The next time they went to question him, they gave him his Miranda warnings, which he waived; suddenly, as if by magic, he had transformed into a criminal defendant, with any answers he provided during the new round of interrogation admissible as evidence in court. A question, then: While the feds’ priorities here were sound — get the counterterror intel first and worry about the prosecution later — how can a suspect who’s been spilling secrets for months while held incommunicado in a military prison seriously believe he has the right to remain silent during that second round of law-enforcement questioning? He’d already given up “very valuable” information by that point, according to one senior administration official, which may or may not have been used in the recent U.S. drone strike against Shabab in Somalia.

Lacking a sophisticated understanding of American criminal procedure, Warsame must have assumed that he’d already incriminated himself during the POW phase of the questioning and therefore might as well keep talking to interrogators once they Mirandized him. I.e. he didn’t really think he had the right to remain silent. And even if he did think had the right, clamming up during the law-enforcement questioning wouldn’t have saved him since Obama’s made it clear that he won’t turn jihadis loose for lack of usable evidence. If you’re a terror threat and we can’t prosecute you, you don’t go free; you get indefinite detention until we figure out a way to deal with you. Warsame’s choice here, once the feds knew he was a dangerous guy, was thus either to play ball and cooperate in hopes of getting a civilian trial or to go silent and risk being thrown in Gitmo for who knows how long due to lack of triable evidence. Heads we win, tails he loses, which makes the Miranda warnings (and long-delayed right to counsel) meaningless. Not what the Hopenchange fans signed up for when they voted for Obama three years ago, I’d imagine.

The NYT, meanwhile, notes that while the White House says Warsame’s detention was justified by the laws of war, it’s a bit hazy as to which congressional statute authorizes this particular detention. Was it the AUMF after 9/11? Some sort of ipse dixit from Obama? Something else? Gabe Malor, Ace’s co-blogger, points to Article 22 of the Third Geneva Convention, which says this:

Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Oh well. See now why I think, if push came to shove, the big O would let the CIA look the other way at his ban on enhanced interrogation?

Read More

6:43 AM | 0 comments

Revealed: White House interrogated Somali jihadi for two months on Navy ship without Miranda warnings

My favorite take on this is Michael Goldfarb’s, who calls it a near-parody of Obama’s penchant for ducking tough decisions by dismissing them as “false choices.” Are you opposed to secret prisons for jihadis? Are you also concerned that federal criminal procedures might be too soft to obtain vital intel?

Well, have I got a compromise for you.

The U.S. military captured a Somali terrorism suspect in the Gulf of Aden in April and interrogated him for more than two months aboard a U.S. Navy ship before flying him this week to New York, where he has been indicted on federal charges…


“What we’re seeing in this case is a government that is conflicted about the legal nature of its counterterrorism operations,” said John Sifton, a human rights attorney with extensive experience in detainee cases.

“On the one hand, it detains persons indefinitely, without access to counsel, using questionable Bush-era interpretations of the laws of war. On the other hand,” he said, “it embraces a more sophisticated approach, by indicting suspects, knowing that the Justice Department is better suited to prosecute them than the military.”…

Warsame was questioned aboard the ship because interrogators “believed that moving him to another facility would interrupt the process and risk ending the intelligence flow,” one senior administration official said.

True to recent unilateral form, knowing that a fuss would be made about sending jihadis to prisons on mainland America, the White House didn’t even notify Congress that they were transferring this guy to the U.S. for trial until he was already on his way. Cue the angry letter from Republican senators, soon to end up in a WH trash can.

As for Warsame’s treatment, he was caught on April 19 and immediately locked up on a military ship as a de facto POW. He was questioned for weeks, without a lawyer present and surrounded by U.S. sailors, about Al Qaeda/Shabab operations in Somalia. At some point the questioning ended and he was left alone for a few days. The next time they went to question him, they gave him his Miranda warnings, which he waived; suddenly, as if by magic, he had transformed into a criminal defendant, with any answers he provided during the new round of interrogation admissible as evidence in court. A question, then: While the feds’ priorities here were sound — get the counterterror intel first and worry about the prosecution later — how can a suspect who’s been spilling secrets for months while held incommunicado in a military prison seriously believe he has the right to remain silent during that second round of law-enforcement questioning? He’d already given up “very valuable” information by that point, according to one senior administration official, which may or may not have been used in the recent U.S. drone strike against Shabab in Somalia.

Lacking a sophisticated understanding of American criminal procedure, Warsame must have assumed that he’d already incriminated himself during the POW phase of the questioning and therefore might as well keep talking to interrogators once they Mirandized him. I.e. he didn’t really think he had the right to remain silent. And even if he did think had the right, clamming up during the law-enforcement questioning wouldn’t have saved him since Obama’s made it clear that he won’t turn jihadis loose for lack of usable evidence. If you’re a terror threat and we can’t prosecute you, you don’t go free; you get indefinite detention until we figure out a way to deal with you. Warsame’s choice here, once the feds knew he was a dangerous guy, was thus either to play ball and cooperate in hopes of getting a civilian trial or to go silent and risk being thrown in Gitmo for who knows how long due to lack of triable evidence. Heads we win, tails he loses, which makes the Miranda warnings (and long-delayed right to counsel) meaningless. Not what the Hopenchange fans signed up for when they voted for Obama three years ago, I’d imagine.

The NYT, meanwhile, notes that while the White House says Warsame’s detention was justified by the laws of war, it’s a bit hazy as to which congressional statute authorizes this particular detention. Was it the AUMF after 9/11? Some sort of ipse dixit from Obama? Something else? Gabe Malor, Ace’s co-blogger, points to Article 22 of the Third Geneva Convention, which says this:

Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Oh well. See now why I think, if push came to shove, the big O would let the CIA look the other way at his ban on enhanced interrogation?

Read More

6:43 AM | 0 comments

ATF Director Melson’s secret Fourth of July fireworks and the post-testimony fallout

This came out this morning, but, in case you haven’t yet caught the summaries on Townhall.com, The Daily Caller or elsewhere, these facts are worth yet another review.

In a secret July 4 testimony before Congressional investigators, Kenneth Melson, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), revealed important new details of Operation Fast and Furious, the international gunrunning scandal that Obama administration officials still refuse to clear up.


Today, Congressional investigators Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) followed up on that testimony by sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder just to let him know what they now know and to censure the Department of Justice for continuing to obstruct investigations into Project Gunwalker.

The key takeaways of the testimony, as relayed in the letter to Holder from Issa and Grassley:

The ATF isn’t the only agency to bear some responsibility for the botched operation that sent guns to Mexico. The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Drug Enforcement Agency seem to have possessed information that could have had a material impact on Fast and Furious (i.e. info that could have eliminated or reduced the ostensible ‘need’ for the operation in the first place). Or, as the letter puts it, “We have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking ‘higher-ups’ that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants.”
Taxpayer money was likely used to finance the gunrunning. “The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities.”
Senior ATF officials would have preferred to cooperate with Congressional inquiries — but “Department of Justice officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress.”
Melson was at no point asked to resign.

Perhaps this would have come out at Melson’s regularly scheduled testimony July 13, but it says something that Melson chose to meet secretly with Issa and Grassley and to be represented by his own personal counsel rather than DOJ and ATF counsel, who, obviously, would have had departmental interests (and the protection of higher officials, perhaps?) more in mind than what was best for Melson.

Trust Issa and Grassley to investigate this until they determine who was ultimately responsible. They clearly think it goes beyond Melson. This is how they concluded their letter:

Any decision about Mr. Melson’s future with the Department would need to be justified solely on the basis of the facts and the needs of the agency, rather than on his decision to speak to us. We encourage you to communicate to us any additional significant information about any such decision so that we can work together to ensure that it would not impede our investigation. For now, the Office of Inspector General is still conducting its review, and we are still conducting ours. Knowing what we know so far, we believe it would be inappropriate to make Mr. Melson the fall guy in an attempt to prevent further congressional oversight.

Inappropriate indeed.

Read More

6:34 AM | 0 comments

ATF Director Melson’s secret Fourth of July fireworks and the post-testimony fallout

This came out this morning, but, in case you haven’t yet caught the summaries on Townhall.com, The Daily Caller or elsewhere, these facts are worth yet another review.

In a secret July 4 testimony before Congressional investigators, Kenneth Melson, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), revealed important new details of Operation Fast and Furious, the international gunrunning scandal that Obama administration officials still refuse to clear up.


Today, Congressional investigators Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) followed up on that testimony by sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder just to let him know what they now know and to censure the Department of Justice for continuing to obstruct investigations into Project Gunwalker.

The key takeaways of the testimony, as relayed in the letter to Holder from Issa and Grassley:

The ATF isn’t the only agency to bear some responsibility for the botched operation that sent guns to Mexico. The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Drug Enforcement Agency seem to have possessed information that could have had a material impact on Fast and Furious (i.e. info that could have eliminated or reduced the ostensible ‘need’ for the operation in the first place). Or, as the letter puts it, “We have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking ‘higher-ups’ that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants.”
Taxpayer money was likely used to finance the gunrunning. “The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities.”
Senior ATF officials would have preferred to cooperate with Congressional inquiries — but “Department of Justice officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress.”
Melson was at no point asked to resign.

Perhaps this would have come out at Melson’s regularly scheduled testimony July 13, but it says something that Melson chose to meet secretly with Issa and Grassley and to be represented by his own personal counsel rather than DOJ and ATF counsel, who, obviously, would have had departmental interests (and the protection of higher officials, perhaps?) more in mind than what was best for Melson.

Trust Issa and Grassley to investigate this until they determine who was ultimately responsible. They clearly think it goes beyond Melson. This is how they concluded their letter:

Any decision about Mr. Melson’s future with the Department would need to be justified solely on the basis of the facts and the needs of the agency, rather than on his decision to speak to us. We encourage you to communicate to us any additional significant information about any such decision so that we can work together to ensure that it would not impede our investigation. For now, the Office of Inspector General is still conducting its review, and we are still conducting ours. Knowing what we know so far, we believe it would be inappropriate to make Mr. Melson the fall guy in an attempt to prevent further congressional oversight.

Inappropriate indeed.

Read More

6:34 AM | 0 comments

Will taxpayer funding for ACORN never go away?

Seriously. Didn’t Congress pass a law to defund this group? The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now still receives taxpayer funding through an offshoot group, The Daily Caller reports.


Legal watchdog group Judicial Watch discovered that the Obama administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a $79,819 grant to an ACORN offshoot, Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). …

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told The Daily Caller this newly discovered grant appears to be in violation of an October 2009 law President Obama signed banning all funding of “ACORN and any ACORN-related affiliate.” …

“If President Obama is serious about the ACORN funding ban he signed in 2009, he’ll try to get to the bottom of this,” Fitton said, adding that Congress can withhold HUD’s funding and conduct oversight investigations into these new discoveries. “I think many members of Congress will be interested in this new development.”

Corrupt and discredited, ACORN still manages to snag taxpayer dollars? It’s possible HUD administration officials thought they were doing nothing wrong, of course. A controversial Government Accountability Office advisory opinion issued in September 2009 stated it considers AHCOA an entity sufficiently removed from ACORN to technically be able to escape the funding ban. But it seems HUD officials considered AHCOA to just be ACORN by another name: The HUD website referred to AHCOA as ‘ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION, INC.”

Really, though, what’s most dejecting about this is that administration officials would even flirt with the technicality. Whatever happened to avoiding “the narrow occasion of sin,” to wanting to avoid even the appearance of corruption? Taxpayers don’t want their hard-earned cash to go to ACORN’s causes, regardless of whether they are labeled as such, and government officials should respect that, not try to skirt the law.

It’s also dejecting to think Obama is highly unlikely to heed Fitton’s advice. What motivation does he have to follow up on this? Maybe he doesn’t want to be tainted with ACORN ties, but you can bet taxpayer bucks he hopes community organizers will “get out the vote” for him in whatever way possible.

Read More

6:18 AM | 0 comments

Will taxpayer funding for ACORN never go away?

Seriously. Didn’t Congress pass a law to defund this group? The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now still receives taxpayer funding through an offshoot group, The Daily Caller reports.


Legal watchdog group Judicial Watch discovered that the Obama administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a $79,819 grant to an ACORN offshoot, Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). …

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told The Daily Caller this newly discovered grant appears to be in violation of an October 2009 law President Obama signed banning all funding of “ACORN and any ACORN-related affiliate.” …

“If President Obama is serious about the ACORN funding ban he signed in 2009, he’ll try to get to the bottom of this,” Fitton said, adding that Congress can withhold HUD’s funding and conduct oversight investigations into these new discoveries. “I think many members of Congress will be interested in this new development.”

Corrupt and discredited, ACORN still manages to snag taxpayer dollars? It’s possible HUD administration officials thought they were doing nothing wrong, of course. A controversial Government Accountability Office advisory opinion issued in September 2009 stated it considers AHCOA an entity sufficiently removed from ACORN to technically be able to escape the funding ban. But it seems HUD officials considered AHCOA to just be ACORN by another name: The HUD website referred to AHCOA as ‘ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION, INC.”

Really, though, what’s most dejecting about this is that administration officials would even flirt with the technicality. Whatever happened to avoiding “the narrow occasion of sin,” to wanting to avoid even the appearance of corruption? Taxpayers don’t want their hard-earned cash to go to ACORN’s causes, regardless of whether they are labeled as such, and government officials should respect that, not try to skirt the law.

It’s also dejecting to think Obama is highly unlikely to heed Fitton’s advice. What motivation does he have to follow up on this? Maybe he doesn’t want to be tainted with ACORN ties, but you can bet taxpayer bucks he hopes community organizers will “get out the vote” for him in whatever way possible.

Read More

6:18 AM | 0 comments

Video: Step off the elevator in this skyscraper of debt

From the office of Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC), a video that spells out why the United States’ credit rating should matter to individual citizens (and calls out the obvious fact that an ever-heightened debt ceiling is no ceiling at all):




“If we do nothing, our debt is on track to soar past 80 percent of our GDP, a level not seen since World War II,” the video states. “Just this year, the big three credit rating agencies warned us that the AAA rating for the United States government is at risk. This rating influences everything from the value of the dollar to mortgage interest rates. It creates a global impact felt at the local level, increasing costs of borrowing for families and businesses, diminishing the abilities of small businesses to invest and grow. The result? Fewer jobs. Indefinite recovery.”

Like other principled Congressmen, McHenry has said “no” to a debt ceiling increase without meaningful spending cuts. Heading into the deficit reduction meeting with the president Thursday, Republicans need to remember the debt ceiling increase itself is the compromise. That is, however necessary it might be at this stage in the game, it is still a license to borrow more, to deepen the debt. As financial adviser Dave Ramsey put it recently, “You can’t borrow your way out of debt.” Simple, maybe, but true.

Last night on Fox News, senior political analyst Brit Hume made the astute point that the president has begun to push more aggressively for tax increases to be a part of any debt limit deal because, at this point, an increase in the debt limit won’t mollify his base. That is, those on the left will consider the president to have compromised more than Republicans if the president agrees to spending cuts and “all” Republicans agree to is to raise the debt ceiling. But, as this video demonstrates, a debt limit increase is a lot to agree to! Each incremental adjustment to the debt ceiling likely brings us closer to “our real debt limit” — the point at which debt will overtake GDP.

For all that the impending debt ceiling deadline (27 days away!) has dominated political headlines (nothing compared to the non-political Casey Anthony coverage, of course), it’s all too easy to forget why it’s important, why it’s not just an abstract debate. This video is a welcome answer to all the abstraction.

Read More

6:08 AM | 0 comments

Video: Step off the elevator in this skyscraper of debt

From the office of Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC), a video that spells out why the United States’ credit rating should matter to individual citizens (and calls out the obvious fact that an ever-heightened debt ceiling is no ceiling at all):




“If we do nothing, our debt is on track to soar past 80 percent of our GDP, a level not seen since World War II,” the video states. “Just this year, the big three credit rating agencies warned us that the AAA rating for the United States government is at risk. This rating influences everything from the value of the dollar to mortgage interest rates. It creates a global impact felt at the local level, increasing costs of borrowing for families and businesses, diminishing the abilities of small businesses to invest and grow. The result? Fewer jobs. Indefinite recovery.”

Like other principled Congressmen, McHenry has said “no” to a debt ceiling increase without meaningful spending cuts. Heading into the deficit reduction meeting with the president Thursday, Republicans need to remember the debt ceiling increase itself is the compromise. That is, however necessary it might be at this stage in the game, it is still a license to borrow more, to deepen the debt. As financial adviser Dave Ramsey put it recently, “You can’t borrow your way out of debt.” Simple, maybe, but true.

Last night on Fox News, senior political analyst Brit Hume made the astute point that the president has begun to push more aggressively for tax increases to be a part of any debt limit deal because, at this point, an increase in the debt limit won’t mollify his base. That is, those on the left will consider the president to have compromised more than Republicans if the president agrees to spending cuts and “all” Republicans agree to is to raise the debt ceiling. But, as this video demonstrates, a debt limit increase is a lot to agree to! Each incremental adjustment to the debt ceiling likely brings us closer to “our real debt limit” — the point at which debt will overtake GDP.

For all that the impending debt ceiling deadline (27 days away!) has dominated political headlines (nothing compared to the non-political Casey Anthony coverage, of course), it’s all too easy to forget why it’s important, why it’s not just an abstract debate. This video is a welcome answer to all the abstraction.

Read More

6:08 AM | 0 comments

Surprise: CNN cancels Spitzer’s show

For Mr. Spitzer, who has tried to rehabilitate his public image since resigning the New York governorship in disgrace three years ago, the cancellation of “In The Arena” is a setback. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday, but in a statement provided by CNN, he expressed pride in his show.

“We engaged serious people in conversations about national and global issues in a way that was informative and challenging,” he said in the statement. “I believe that we provided diverse and valuable perspectives during the show’s tenure.”


The executive in charge of CNN/U.S., Ken Jautz, said in an internal memorandum that the channel is currently “in discussions with Eliot Spitzer about an alternative role.” But Mr. Spitzer’s own statement cast doubt on that possibility; it concluded by saying, “I thoroughly enjoyed my time at CNN.”

How bad was it for Client Number Nine? Not only was he already getting whipped in the demo by Olby on whichever UHF frequency Current TV broadcasts on, he was getting whipped by “Red Eye” on Fox at 3 a.m. Looking back, the only memorable interview in the entire run of the show was the time John Ziegler showed up and clashed with Kathleen Parker over Palin. Otherwise it was just … CNN. Nothing terrible, really, but nothing that Blitzer or John King or a thousand other people couldn’t have done for them in that timeslot. In fact, it’s amazing to think how long blandness at 8 p.m. has been a problem for them given the gangbusters ratings Fox and MSNBC piled up during the same hour by unleashing some personality. O’Reilly and Olbermann have been chewing scenery since 2003; over that same span, CNN’s had … Paula Zahn, Campbell Brown, and Spitz. And now they’re going to plug Anderson Cooper in there and do another hard-news-y hour. Cooper’s personal star power will help them, and the new lead-in — Erin Burnett at 7, finally with her own show — is a nice change of pace given how cable news primetime skews older and male, but there’s someone else they could have gotten who would have done serious business as Spitzer’s replacement. She’s as colorful as O’R and Olby, she’s proved that she can deliver big ratings, and thanks to l’affaire Anthony, she’s never been bigger. Dude, it’s time.

Read More

5:46 AM | 0 comments

Surprise: CNN cancels Spitzer’s show

For Mr. Spitzer, who has tried to rehabilitate his public image since resigning the New York governorship in disgrace three years ago, the cancellation of “In The Arena” is a setback. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday, but in a statement provided by CNN, he expressed pride in his show.

“We engaged serious people in conversations about national and global issues in a way that was informative and challenging,” he said in the statement. “I believe that we provided diverse and valuable perspectives during the show’s tenure.”


The executive in charge of CNN/U.S., Ken Jautz, said in an internal memorandum that the channel is currently “in discussions with Eliot Spitzer about an alternative role.” But Mr. Spitzer’s own statement cast doubt on that possibility; it concluded by saying, “I thoroughly enjoyed my time at CNN.”

How bad was it for Client Number Nine? Not only was he already getting whipped in the demo by Olby on whichever UHF frequency Current TV broadcasts on, he was getting whipped by “Red Eye” on Fox at 3 a.m. Looking back, the only memorable interview in the entire run of the show was the time John Ziegler showed up and clashed with Kathleen Parker over Palin. Otherwise it was just … CNN. Nothing terrible, really, but nothing that Blitzer or John King or a thousand other people couldn’t have done for them in that timeslot. In fact, it’s amazing to think how long blandness at 8 p.m. has been a problem for them given the gangbusters ratings Fox and MSNBC piled up during the same hour by unleashing some personality. O’Reilly and Olbermann have been chewing scenery since 2003; over that same span, CNN’s had … Paula Zahn, Campbell Brown, and Spitz. And now they’re going to plug Anderson Cooper in there and do another hard-news-y hour. Cooper’s personal star power will help them, and the new lead-in — Erin Burnett at 7, finally with her own show — is a nice change of pace given how cable news primetime skews older and male, but there’s someone else they could have gotten who would have done serious business as Spitzer’s replacement. She’s as colorful as O’R and Olby, she’s proved that she can deliver big ratings, and thanks to l’affaire Anthony, she’s never been bigger. Dude, it’s time.

Read More

5:46 AM | 0 comments

Benefit auction, Range Day in memory of Joel Rosenberg

When last I posted about the passing of my friend Joel Rosenberg, Hot Air readers reached out to offer their financial support to his family, especially after his activism on behalf of Second Amendment rights left them in a big hole with legal and court fees. Unfortunately, the web site that had the tip-jar information was hacked prior to Joel’s death, which no one knew until his wife began wondering where the donations were going. The hack didn’t occur on the PayPal side (it was on the website), which means that PayPal won’t indemnify Felicia for the losses.


If you donated through the site’s tip jar, please contact your bank or PayPal to retrieve the funds. Explain that the site was hacked and the money didn’t reach its intended recipient. Hopefully, your financial institution will claw back the funds (and perhaps prompt a further investigation). If you get your money back, you can send it to the Joel Rosenberg Memorial Fund at Wells Fargo:

At any Wells Fargo bank make a deposit to the JOEL ROSENBERG MEMORIAL FUND.

OR

Send a check or money order here:
Wells Fargo Bank, NA
C/O The Joel Rosenberg Memorial Fund
330 Clydesdale Trail
Medina, MN 55340

Now, for better news. Joel’s family is currently holding an auction of much of Joel’s firearm and knife collection (keeping a few pieces for the family) at the Minnesota Carry Forum. It’s an impressive collection, and I have already bid on a few pieces myself. Feel free to join and to bid, although if you’re outside of Minnesota, you may want to check with your state to determine how to handle a private sale that crosses state lines. So far, after just two days, the collected bids as of now total over $11,000, which will go a long way toward helping Felicia bury the debt and move forward.

Also, the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers has announced a MOB Day at the Range benefit for Joel’s family on July 14th. If you’re in town, bring a minimum $20 dollar donation and join us for a celebration of Joel and a good time exercising our 2nd Amendment rights. The Burnsville Pistol Range is giving us a very generous rate to rent out a full bay of lanes, and we’ll have a few owners willing to share their pistols (only pistols in this bay) with those who currently do not own a firearm but are trained to use them. We’ll have a few range-safety officers on board to ensure a safe and good time for everyone! Mitch Berg has more at the link, including how to RSVP.

Read More

5:44 AM | 0 comments

Benefit auction, Range Day in memory of Joel Rosenberg

When last I posted about the passing of my friend Joel Rosenberg, Hot Air readers reached out to offer their financial support to his family, especially after his activism on behalf of Second Amendment rights left them in a big hole with legal and court fees. Unfortunately, the web site that had the tip-jar information was hacked prior to Joel’s death, which no one knew until his wife began wondering where the donations were going. The hack didn’t occur on the PayPal side (it was on the website), which means that PayPal won’t indemnify Felicia for the losses.


If you donated through the site’s tip jar, please contact your bank or PayPal to retrieve the funds. Explain that the site was hacked and the money didn’t reach its intended recipient. Hopefully, your financial institution will claw back the funds (and perhaps prompt a further investigation). If you get your money back, you can send it to the Joel Rosenberg Memorial Fund at Wells Fargo:

At any Wells Fargo bank make a deposit to the JOEL ROSENBERG MEMORIAL FUND.

OR

Send a check or money order here:
Wells Fargo Bank, NA
C/O The Joel Rosenberg Memorial Fund
330 Clydesdale Trail
Medina, MN 55340

Now, for better news. Joel’s family is currently holding an auction of much of Joel’s firearm and knife collection (keeping a few pieces for the family) at the Minnesota Carry Forum. It’s an impressive collection, and I have already bid on a few pieces myself. Feel free to join and to bid, although if you’re outside of Minnesota, you may want to check with your state to determine how to handle a private sale that crosses state lines. So far, after just two days, the collected bids as of now total over $11,000, which will go a long way toward helping Felicia bury the debt and move forward.

Also, the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers has announced a MOB Day at the Range benefit for Joel’s family on July 14th. If you’re in town, bring a minimum $20 dollar donation and join us for a celebration of Joel and a good time exercising our 2nd Amendment rights. The Burnsville Pistol Range is giving us a very generous rate to rent out a full bay of lanes, and we’ll have a few owners willing to share their pistols (only pistols in this bay) with those who currently do not own a firearm but are trained to use them. We’ll have a few range-safety officers on board to ensure a safe and good time for everyone! Mitch Berg has more at the link, including how to RSVP.

Read More

5:44 AM | 0 comments

Strategic-reserve release has its predictable effect

The Obama administration, stung by complaints of passiveness in the face of rapidly-rising gas and food prices, responded two weeks ago by releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Prices dropped five dollars a barrel within five days, but as CNBC reports today, that price decline was short-lived:

Crude raced higher Tuesday as energy bulls pushed Nymex oil back toward the $100-a-barrel mark, prices last seen before world governments said they would release crude from their reserves last month.


West Texas Intermediate jumped 2.1 percent to $96.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, decidedly above the $94.45 close of June 22, the day before the announcement on the release of 60 million barrels from reserves.

Brent crude on the ICE futures exchange finished $2.25 higher at $113.63 a barrel, and just below the June 22 high of $114.21. Brent touched $114.44 Tuesday. …

On June 22, the day before the announcement by the International Energy Agency that crude would be released from strategic reserves, it was at $95.41. It hit a low close of $90.84 on June 27.

In other words, the release did nothing to solve the underlying issues of supply and demand, as Jazz Shaw predicted on June 23rd. And why would it? The amount released equals the amount used in America in 36 hours. It represents the amount imported by America in less than three days. It’s just another gimmick intended to get a momentarily positive report in a market that has long-term crises facing it.

By the way, the US will eventually have to replace that released amount of oil. What happens when we start buying oil in the market to do so? Prices will go up even further as demand increases and supply remains constant. It will likely cost us more than it did to buy the released oil in the first place. This is basic economics, not terribly difficult to grasp.

The only way to address the energy problem in the US is to start producing more reliable domestic supply. We have vast reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas that would power the US for decades if not centuries and create hundreds of thousands of direct, high-paying jobs if we had the will to extract and use it. Having that kind of long-term “all of the above” strategy would not only lower fuel prices in the long run at home, the direct and indirect job creation from exploration and extraction would boost the economy as well, while the reliable energy stream would attract investors to American markets to open or expand operations. That would touch off a hiring boom across the economy that would help alleviate the housing-market crises and stabilize American finance.

That is what an actual economic and energy policy would look like. Instead, the White House is giving us the Gimmick of the Month.

Read More

5:40 AM | 0 comments

Strategic-reserve release has its predictable effect

The Obama administration, stung by complaints of passiveness in the face of rapidly-rising gas and food prices, responded two weeks ago by releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Prices dropped five dollars a barrel within five days, but as CNBC reports today, that price decline was short-lived:

Crude raced higher Tuesday as energy bulls pushed Nymex oil back toward the $100-a-barrel mark, prices last seen before world governments said they would release crude from their reserves last month.


West Texas Intermediate jumped 2.1 percent to $96.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, decidedly above the $94.45 close of June 22, the day before the announcement on the release of 60 million barrels from reserves.

Brent crude on the ICE futures exchange finished $2.25 higher at $113.63 a barrel, and just below the June 22 high of $114.21. Brent touched $114.44 Tuesday. …

On June 22, the day before the announcement by the International Energy Agency that crude would be released from strategic reserves, it was at $95.41. It hit a low close of $90.84 on June 27.

In other words, the release did nothing to solve the underlying issues of supply and demand, as Jazz Shaw predicted on June 23rd. And why would it? The amount released equals the amount used in America in 36 hours. It represents the amount imported by America in less than three days. It’s just another gimmick intended to get a momentarily positive report in a market that has long-term crises facing it.

By the way, the US will eventually have to replace that released amount of oil. What happens when we start buying oil in the market to do so? Prices will go up even further as demand increases and supply remains constant. It will likely cost us more than it did to buy the released oil in the first place. This is basic economics, not terribly difficult to grasp.

The only way to address the energy problem in the US is to start producing more reliable domestic supply. We have vast reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas that would power the US for decades if not centuries and create hundreds of thousands of direct, high-paying jobs if we had the will to extract and use it. Having that kind of long-term “all of the above” strategy would not only lower fuel prices in the long run at home, the direct and indirect job creation from exploration and extraction would boost the economy as well, while the reliable energy stream would attract investors to American markets to open or expand operations. That would touch off a hiring boom across the economy that would help alleviate the housing-market crises and stabilize American finance.

That is what an actual economic and energy policy would look like. Instead, the White House is giving us the Gimmick of the Month.

Read More

5:40 AM | 0 comments

Casey Anthony trial got more media attention than any GOP presidential candidate

Here at Hot Air, we have had a total of five mentions (in the posts sections, anyway) of the Casey Anthony trial since it began. Three of those came yesterday, and the other two were tangential mentions on posts dealing with media issues. For the national media, though, the Casey Anthony trial swamped out most other stories, including such minor topics as, er, who will lead the nation. Eric Ostermeier at Smart Politics researched Lexis-Nexis for the period between the start of the trial and its conclusion yesterday and found that more media attention fell on Anthony than any Republican candidate for the presidential nomination:


While it is no secret that the American media has over-covered and sensationalized the Casey Anthony murder trial in Orlando, Florida, the extent to which the trial has crowded out the Republican presidential nomination campaign may not be evident, particularly for those who cover politics every day.

A Smart Politics study of Lexis-Nexis transcripts from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NPR found more news reports mentioned the Casey Anthony trial at least one time than any of the 10+ major and minor Republican presidential candidates since opening statements were delivered on May 24th.

The Anthony murder case was covered in 899 reports overall, with Mitt Romney mentioned in 764, followed by Michele Bachmann at 609, Tim Pawlenty at 454, Newt Gingrich at 438, and Herman Cain at 321.

Trailing further behind were 2012 newcomers and long-shot Republican candidates Jon Huntsman at 299 reports, Ron Paul at 269, Rick Santorum at 251, Thad McCotter at 30, Gary Johnson at 19, and Buddy Roemer at one.

Not surprisingly, CNN came in first place in the Casey sweepstakes, with a whopping 567 reports, including those at its sister channel HLN, which covered the trial live. CNN had more invested in promoting the trial as a news story. Remember this when media outlets try to argue that there is a “firewall” between news reporting and editorial and sales groups. ABC finished second with 173 reports in the 42-day period, and Fox got the bronze medal with 122.

Remarkably, MSNBC only had one news report on the Casey Anthony trial, although Eric adds a caveat that MSNBC doesn’t make its weekend transcripts available through Lexis-Nexis as other media outlets do. That’s a rare showing of journalistic restraint for the “Lean Forward” channel.

As for the non-candidates in the race, they don’t do much better, even though they have received plenty of attention. Sarah Palin only got 721 mentions in 42 days (“only”!), which puts her just behind Romney but ahead of everyone else — and well below the Casey Anthony story. Rick Perry edged Jon Huntsman at 301.

Yesterday, we heard from a number of commenters and readers about their frustration with the blanket coverage of the trial. The numbers show that they have a point, and that the national media has a problem with its priorities.

Read More

5:38 AM | 0 comments

Casey Anthony trial got more media attention than any GOP presidential candidate

Here at Hot Air, we have had a total of five mentions (in the posts sections, anyway) of the Casey Anthony trial since it began. Three of those came yesterday, and the other two were tangential mentions on posts dealing with media issues. For the national media, though, the Casey Anthony trial swamped out most other stories, including such minor topics as, er, who will lead the nation. Eric Ostermeier at Smart Politics researched Lexis-Nexis for the period between the start of the trial and its conclusion yesterday and found that more media attention fell on Anthony than any Republican candidate for the presidential nomination:


While it is no secret that the American media has over-covered and sensationalized the Casey Anthony murder trial in Orlando, Florida, the extent to which the trial has crowded out the Republican presidential nomination campaign may not be evident, particularly for those who cover politics every day.

A Smart Politics study of Lexis-Nexis transcripts from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NPR found more news reports mentioned the Casey Anthony trial at least one time than any of the 10+ major and minor Republican presidential candidates since opening statements were delivered on May 24th.

The Anthony murder case was covered in 899 reports overall, with Mitt Romney mentioned in 764, followed by Michele Bachmann at 609, Tim Pawlenty at 454, Newt Gingrich at 438, and Herman Cain at 321.

Trailing further behind were 2012 newcomers and long-shot Republican candidates Jon Huntsman at 299 reports, Ron Paul at 269, Rick Santorum at 251, Thad McCotter at 30, Gary Johnson at 19, and Buddy Roemer at one.

Not surprisingly, CNN came in first place in the Casey sweepstakes, with a whopping 567 reports, including those at its sister channel HLN, which covered the trial live. CNN had more invested in promoting the trial as a news story. Remember this when media outlets try to argue that there is a “firewall” between news reporting and editorial and sales groups. ABC finished second with 173 reports in the 42-day period, and Fox got the bronze medal with 122.

Remarkably, MSNBC only had one news report on the Casey Anthony trial, although Eric adds a caveat that MSNBC doesn’t make its weekend transcripts available through Lexis-Nexis as other media outlets do. That’s a rare showing of journalistic restraint for the “Lean Forward” channel.

As for the non-candidates in the race, they don’t do much better, even though they have received plenty of attention. Sarah Palin only got 721 mentions in 42 days (“only”!), which puts her just behind Romney but ahead of everyone else — and well below the Casey Anthony story. Rick Perry edged Jon Huntsman at 301.

Yesterday, we heard from a number of commenters and readers about their frustration with the blanket coverage of the trial. The numbers show that they have a point, and that the national media has a problem with its priorities.

Read More

5:38 AM | 0 comments

Intellectual authorities” coast to coast agree: stimulus flopped

Yesterday, David Brooks scolded Republicans for not listening to “intellectual authorities” on fiscal policy. Fair enough; I figured I’d devote some time today to the opinion of intellectual authorities on economics and public policy, and decided to focus on Harvard and Stanford for my research. Fortunately, economics professors at both top-notch bastions of intellectual authority have quite a lot to say about Obamanomics. Let’s start with Harvard’s Robert Barro, quoted in the London Telegraph as saying that government stimulus wastes money, has negative rather than positive multipliers for national economies, and only should be undertaken for specific purposes under narrow conditions:


Breaking with current economic orthodoxy, Robert Barro, Paul M Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, said large spending plans should be undertaken only if they can be justified financially on their own merits. Any other spending plans end up costing the country even more than the initial outlay as interest on the debt has to be paid and the deficit cleared.

“In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can’t just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect,” he said.

“The lesson is you want government spending only if the programmes are really worth it in terms of the usual rate of return calculations. The usual kind of calculation, not some Keynesian thing. The fact that it really is worth it to have highways and education. Classic public finance, that’s not macroeconomics.”

Turning to the $600bn (£373bn) to $800bn US package, he added it was “mainly a waste of money”. Stimulus programmes, he said, offer little more than “rearranging the timing” of economic growth. “Possibly you could make an argument that it’s worth it. But it’s going to be a negative-sum thing overall, so you have to think it’s a big benefit for boosting the recovery.”

“Rearranging the timing” has been the only real hallmark of Obamanomics. The administration has done nothing but create short-term economic incentives in an attempt to convince people that real recovery had already arrived, when instead all they did was move demand from future quarters to present. Whether it was the stimulus package that accelerated “shovel ready” public projects, Cash for Clunkers, or a series of ill-advised home buyer tax breaks that enticed buyers to commit while home prices were still too high, the Obama administration’s economic policy has entirely consisted of gimmickry rather than a focus on long-term growth.

Let’s go to the Left Coast for another view. Stanford’s John Taylor looks at Obama’s stimulus plan to determine whether a larger amount of money would have worked. He concludes that not only wouldn’t it have worked, the dollar amount is actually irrelevant, since most of the money went to non-stimulating purposes:

In sum, this empirical examination of the direct effects of the three countercyclical stimulus packages of the 2000s indicates that they did not have a positive effect on consumption and government purchases, and thus did not counter the decline in investment during the recessions as the basic Keynesian textbook model would suggest. Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers.

Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view. According to the empirical estimates of the impact of ARRA, if there had been no temporary stimulus payments to individuals or families, their total consumption would have been about the same. And if there had been no ARRA grants to states and localities, their total expenditures would have been about the same. The counterfactual simulations show that the ARRA-induced decline in state and local government purchases was larger than the increase in federal government purchases due to ARRA. In terms of the simple example of Model A versus Model B presented above, these results are evidence against the views represented by Model A, and thus against using such models to show that things would have been worse.

Others argue that the stimulus was too small, but the results do not lend support to that view either. Using the estimated equations, a counterfactual simulation of a larger stimulus package—with the proportions going to state and local grants, federal purchases, and transfers to individual the same as in ARRA—would show little change in government purchases or consumption, as the temporary funds would be largely saved.

James Pethokoukis at Reuters connects the dots:

Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recovery’s terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate that’s probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years … and counting … wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage. Losing the future.

Next, add in healthcare reform that Medicare’s chief actuary says will not slow the overall growth of healthcare spending. (Even its Obama administration godfather, Peter Orszag, warns that “more drastic measures may ultimately be needed.”) And toss in a financial reform plan that the outspoken and independent president of the Kansas City Fed says he “can’t imagine” working. “I don’t have faith in it all.” Indeed, markets continue to treat the biggest banks as if they are still too big to fail.

But wait there’s more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with America’s long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder. One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.

In order to accelerate growth in a real and sustainable manner, the US government has to create an investor-friendly environment. The Obama administration has done everything but do so. Obama’s class-warfare rhetoric, including the ridiculous new war on corporate-jet owners, as well as his legislation (ObamaCare, financial reform) and regulatory expansion all signal a determined hostility to capital. Moreover, the White House refusal to acknowledge the obvious deficit and debt crises with its insistence on trillion-dollar annual red ink shows that the leaders of its economic policy simply have no clue as to the damage they are doing to America’s financial standing. In that kind of environment, who would want to invest their capital and take risk in the US if they had the opportunity to use it elsewhere?

Read More

5:37 AM | 0 comments

Intellectual authorities” coast to coast agree: stimulus flopped

Yesterday, David Brooks scolded Republicans for not listening to “intellectual authorities” on fiscal policy. Fair enough; I figured I’d devote some time today to the opinion of intellectual authorities on economics and public policy, and decided to focus on Harvard and Stanford for my research. Fortunately, economics professors at both top-notch bastions of intellectual authority have quite a lot to say about Obamanomics. Let’s start with Harvard’s Robert Barro, quoted in the London Telegraph as saying that government stimulus wastes money, has negative rather than positive multipliers for national economies, and only should be undertaken for specific purposes under narrow conditions:


Breaking with current economic orthodoxy, Robert Barro, Paul M Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, said large spending plans should be undertaken only if they can be justified financially on their own merits. Any other spending plans end up costing the country even more than the initial outlay as interest on the debt has to be paid and the deficit cleared.

“In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can’t just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect,” he said.

“The lesson is you want government spending only if the programmes are really worth it in terms of the usual rate of return calculations. The usual kind of calculation, not some Keynesian thing. The fact that it really is worth it to have highways and education. Classic public finance, that’s not macroeconomics.”

Turning to the $600bn (£373bn) to $800bn US package, he added it was “mainly a waste of money”. Stimulus programmes, he said, offer little more than “rearranging the timing” of economic growth. “Possibly you could make an argument that it’s worth it. But it’s going to be a negative-sum thing overall, so you have to think it’s a big benefit for boosting the recovery.”

“Rearranging the timing” has been the only real hallmark of Obamanomics. The administration has done nothing but create short-term economic incentives in an attempt to convince people that real recovery had already arrived, when instead all they did was move demand from future quarters to present. Whether it was the stimulus package that accelerated “shovel ready” public projects, Cash for Clunkers, or a series of ill-advised home buyer tax breaks that enticed buyers to commit while home prices were still too high, the Obama administration’s economic policy has entirely consisted of gimmickry rather than a focus on long-term growth.

Let’s go to the Left Coast for another view. Stanford’s John Taylor looks at Obama’s stimulus plan to determine whether a larger amount of money would have worked. He concludes that not only wouldn’t it have worked, the dollar amount is actually irrelevant, since most of the money went to non-stimulating purposes:

In sum, this empirical examination of the direct effects of the three countercyclical stimulus packages of the 2000s indicates that they did not have a positive effect on consumption and government purchases, and thus did not counter the decline in investment during the recessions as the basic Keynesian textbook model would suggest. Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers.

Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view. According to the empirical estimates of the impact of ARRA, if there had been no temporary stimulus payments to individuals or families, their total consumption would have been about the same. And if there had been no ARRA grants to states and localities, their total expenditures would have been about the same. The counterfactual simulations show that the ARRA-induced decline in state and local government purchases was larger than the increase in federal government purchases due to ARRA. In terms of the simple example of Model A versus Model B presented above, these results are evidence against the views represented by Model A, and thus against using such models to show that things would have been worse.

Others argue that the stimulus was too small, but the results do not lend support to that view either. Using the estimated equations, a counterfactual simulation of a larger stimulus package—with the proportions going to state and local grants, federal purchases, and transfers to individual the same as in ARRA—would show little change in government purchases or consumption, as the temporary funds would be largely saved.

James Pethokoukis at Reuters connects the dots:

Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recovery’s terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate that’s probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years … and counting … wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage. Losing the future.

Next, add in healthcare reform that Medicare’s chief actuary says will not slow the overall growth of healthcare spending. (Even its Obama administration godfather, Peter Orszag, warns that “more drastic measures may ultimately be needed.”) And toss in a financial reform plan that the outspoken and independent president of the Kansas City Fed says he “can’t imagine” working. “I don’t have faith in it all.” Indeed, markets continue to treat the biggest banks as if they are still too big to fail.

But wait there’s more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with America’s long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder. One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.

In order to accelerate growth in a real and sustainable manner, the US government has to create an investor-friendly environment. The Obama administration has done everything but do so. Obama’s class-warfare rhetoric, including the ridiculous new war on corporate-jet owners, as well as his legislation (ObamaCare, financial reform) and regulatory expansion all signal a determined hostility to capital. Moreover, the White House refusal to acknowledge the obvious deficit and debt crises with its insistence on trillion-dollar annual red ink shows that the leaders of its economic policy simply have no clue as to the damage they are doing to America’s financial standing. In that kind of environment, who would want to invest their capital and take risk in the US if they had the opportunity to use it elsewhere?

Read More

5:37 AM | 0 comments

Video: Bachmann dispels popular image of Tea Partiers as “toothless hillbillies”

GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann has so far drawn larger crowds in Iowa than any other candidate, according to at least one news broadcast — and her ties to the Tea Party seem to have something to do with that (h/t Drudge and RCP).



She’s right, of course. Those who disagree with Tea Party principles will of course imply Tea Partiers are gauche and unimpressive. But ongoing attempted dismissals of the Tea Party as extreme or uneducated actually just serve to underscore how effective this organic movement of “ordinary” Americans has been — and how integral Tea Party support or opposition can be to an election or reelection effort.

As Townhall.com’s Kevin Glass recently wrote so eloquently:

Maybe it’s a result of not going to enough parades on the Fourth of July, but many on the Left continue to misunderstand what conservatives are all about. In one fell swoop, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne accuses conservatives of being anti-democratic, historically ignorant, intellectually shallow, inherently violent and possibly secret racists. …

Memo to the left: tea partiers aren’t anarchists. They’re not violent revolutionaries. They’re not premised on the idea that Barack Obama is somehow an ‘illegitimate’ president. They’re ordinary working Americans who can see the profligate spending of the federal government and want to harken back to a time when states had more power, the federal government had more checks on it, and the federal government wasn’t carrying entitlement liabilities that will bring down the economy in the near future if something’s not done.

Yep. Sounds like a group whose support is worth having.

Read More

5:33 AM | 0 comments

Video: Bachmann dispels popular image of Tea Partiers as “toothless hillbillies”

GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Michele Bachmann has so far drawn larger crowds in Iowa than any other candidate, according to at least one news broadcast — and her ties to the Tea Party seem to have something to do with that (h/t Drudge and RCP).



She’s right, of course. Those who disagree with Tea Party principles will of course imply Tea Partiers are gauche and unimpressive. But ongoing attempted dismissals of the Tea Party as extreme or uneducated actually just serve to underscore how effective this organic movement of “ordinary” Americans has been — and how integral Tea Party support or opposition can be to an election or reelection effort.

As Townhall.com’s Kevin Glass recently wrote so eloquently:

Maybe it’s a result of not going to enough parades on the Fourth of July, but many on the Left continue to misunderstand what conservatives are all about. In one fell swoop, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne accuses conservatives of being anti-democratic, historically ignorant, intellectually shallow, inherently violent and possibly secret racists. …

Memo to the left: tea partiers aren’t anarchists. They’re not violent revolutionaries. They’re not premised on the idea that Barack Obama is somehow an ‘illegitimate’ president. They’re ordinary working Americans who can see the profligate spending of the federal government and want to harken back to a time when states had more power, the federal government had more checks on it, and the federal government wasn’t carrying entitlement liabilities that will bring down the economy in the near future if something’s not done.

Yep. Sounds like a group whose support is worth having.

Read More

5:33 AM | 0 comments