Politics, Government & Public Policy: June 2008 Archives

There's something fishy about the Obama-related grafitti in Orlando.

The Orlando Police Department found dozens of city owned vehicles vandalized Saturday.

The vandal or vandals appear to have political intentions; most of the vehicles were spray painted with anti Obama sayings, with ‘Obama’ misspelled several times. Some of their vehicles had their gas caps removed. ...

The person or persons left a business card with political ramblings and other phrases such as ‘How ‘Bout them Gators’ and ‘Legalize Marijuana/ Stop Building Prisons’.

It seems clear that the perpetrators aren't conservative Obama-haters. Check out the card the vandals left behind:

Doesn't seem pro-McCain, does it? Maybe disgruntled Hillary supporters?

Today's SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was a strong statement protecting one of our most valuable civil rights: the right to self-defense. The reactions from various politicians are especially interesting considering that while an expected 100% of Republicans quoted approve of the decision, so do three out of five Democrats.

Mark Steyn has a great little bit on Obama's tendency to use naivety and ignorance as excuses for his screw-ups.

Nothing in Obama's resume suggests he's the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew," said the senator, in what's becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he's known for 20 years.

Yet at the same time as he's being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama's convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America's enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up, and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that "this isn't the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."

If Obama can't discern the character of his friends and spiritual advisers, is he really competent to negotiate with America's enemies?

I'm sure I saw this on Instapundit yesterday or something... who knows. Anyway, Barack Obama obviously doesn't know much history.

And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

As Confederate Yankee points out, the 1993 WTC bomber is still at-large.

It's quite simple: where is the 1993 World Trade Center bomb-builder? Is he in a U.S prison, as Obama claims? Not even close.

Though grossly neglected in the media, Abdul Rahman Yasin conducted the first attempted chemical weapons attack on U.S. soil by terrorists with the 1993 World Trade Center bomb. The bomb that detonated in the WTC garage in 1993 was built by Yasin to create smoke filled with sodium cyanide, which he hoped would rise through elevator shafts, ventilation ducts, and stairwells to suffocate 50,000 people.

Fortunately for those in the Trade Center that day, the bomb burned hotter than Yasin expected, and incinerated up the cyanide as it detonated instead of spreading it in toxic smoke.

Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion. He is still free, and wanted by the FBI.

Once again, Barack Obama is dead wrong on the facts.

An Obama presidency would either be a disaster, or he's playing his Leftist supporters for dupes.

It's not unusual to see male-bashing for the sake of attempted comedy -- after all, white men are the only allowable targets for ridicule these days -- but Barack Obama really hit the right notes with his Father's Day address. He wasn't male-bashing: he laid out some very legitimate, and very constructive criticism that the black community in particular needs to hear. (And has heard from Bill Cosby, among others.)

In an address that was striking for its bluntness and where he chose to give it, Mr. Obama directly addressed one of the most delicate topics confronting black leaders: how much responsibility absent fathers bear for some of the intractable problems afflicting black Americans. Mr. Obama noted that “more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,” a number that he said had doubled since his own childhood.

“Too many fathers are M.I.A., too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Mr. Obama said to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

Accompanied by his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, who sat in the front pew, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, laid out his case in stark terms that would be difficult for a white candidate to make, telling the mostly black audience not to “just sit in the house watching ‘SportsCenter,’ ” and to stop praising themselves for mediocre accomplishments.

“Don’t get carried away with that eighth-grade graduation,” he said, bringing many members of the congregation to their feet, applauding. “You’re supposed to graduate from eighth grade.”

This speech will certainly appeal to family-value voters, as it is no doubt intended to. From the transcript we can see some parts that even made The New York Times too uncomfortable to print:

We know that education is everything to our children’s future. We know that they will no longer just compete for good jobs with children from Indiana, but children from India and China and all over the world. We know the work and the studying and the level of education that requires.

A mention of globalism that doesn't denounce the competition but instead encourages Americans to rise to the challenge. Nice.

And the speech itself contained an unexpected admission from a Democrat that wasn't in the prepared text:

The change we need is not just gonna come from government. It's not just gonna come from a president. It's gonna come from us. It's gonna come from each and every one of us. We need families to raise our children.

What?! The government isn't the solution to all our problems? Holy crap, who'd've thunk it? It's not in the transcript, but apparently Obama said it.

Update:

Oooo, and there's this:

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.

Wait wait wait... the responsibility of fatherhood begins at conception? What about motherly responsibility? Does that responsibility preclude elective abortion?

Fred Hiatt's recent column about Senator Rockefeller's investigation into President Bush's alleged lies about pre-war intelligence on Iraq should be plastered around the blogosphere. Despite the Democrat senator's intentions and proclamations, his committee report appears to be a thorough and compelling defense of the President.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

And so on for quite a ways. In 2002, even the honorable senator from West Virginia believed these very same intelligence reports.

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

The real disgrace is how very wrong some of these intelligence reports turned out to be. We may never know how close the ties were between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, or whether Hussein believed his scientists were working on WMD, or even whether Iraqi WMDs were moved to Syria in the run-up to the invasion. But it's crystal clear that American intelligence agencies bungled their job horribly and were never held to account.

Given what we know now, I would still have favored the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- though with our present hindsight we could have administered it better. But even those who opposed and still oppose the war must eventually admit that it wasn't instigated as a grand hoax on the American people by an oil-crazed idiot-savant, but that the decision was in fact based on the best information available at the time.

(HT: Instapundit, of course.)

The positions on corporations and taxes advocated by John McCain in this article read better than the headline makes them sound: "McCain wants low corporate taxes, regulated CEO pay". "Regulated"?

The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives' pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.

Requiring shareholder approval for huge pay packages doesn't seem like government "regulation" to me. I like the idea.

U.S. taxes were too complicated overhaul, McCain will say in his speech, in which he will argue for an alternative system.

"As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so," he will say.

"Everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction."

I want to hear more details, but it sounds good. I've long been in favor of a Flat Tax or some other such tax system as have become prevalent in Easter Europe, with much success.

But he also takes aim at top corporate executives with big salaries and excessive severance packages.

"Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.

"If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he will say.

Ahhh... "called to account by federal prosecutors" sounds good, if there's a crime other than mere incompetence. Not sure what other regulations McCain is considering along these lines. Forcing company boards to allow shareholders to vote on pay packages sounds like a great idea though.

I've got friends in the industry, and from what I've heard restaurants are some of the hardest small businesses to run successfully. That said, it's still pretty sad that the United States Senate couldn't even keep their cafeteria in the black. There really is no such thing as a free lunch, but through privatization the Senate might at least get cheap, high-quality food.

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires. ...

"It's so bad that the Senate hasn't yet figured out that House 'Taco Salad Wednesday' trumps any type of entree they have to offer," said Ron Bonjean, a former press secretary to both the House speaker and the Senate Republican leader.

But don't worry! The government will do a great job running our socialized health care system.

(HT: The Pirate.)

Too bad Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado doesn't name names when he says that some Democrats oppose oil shale development because they'd prefer that people quit driving.

Fortune: Has oil shale development always been a partisan issue or is this something new?

Sen. Allard: It is something new. The issue with the Democrats now is they want to cut off any source of carbon. And there are those in the Senate who believe the more expensive you make gasoline, the less driving people do and you force conservation by making driving so expensive people can't afford it.

Somehow I don't get the idea that these Democrats themselves would stop driving or flying. They just want the rest of us to.

NHS leaves a British woman to die because she went outside the nationalized health system.

A Grandmother whose free NHS treatment was withdrawn because she paid privately for anti-cancer drugs has died.

Yesterday Linda O'Boyle's husband condemned the policy behind the decision and said it had made his dying wife's last months even more stressful.

Mrs O'Boyle, 64, had been receiving state-funded treatment - including chemotherapy - for colon cancer.

But when she took cetuximab, a drug which promised to extend her life but is not available on the NHS, her health trust made her start paying for her care.

The victim's husband, an NHS manager, has had his eyes opened by the experience:

Mr O'Boyle, an NHS manager for 30 years, said: 'I think every drug should be available to all of us if there's a need for that drug to be used.

'I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatmentwe were receiving at the hospital-The consultant was flabbergasted - he was very upset.'

He added: 'I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort. ...

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

But at least rich people and poor people all get to die evenly! Too bad they have to die at the level of poor people, though.

(HT: The Pirate.)

Rumors of a Michelle Obama "whitey" video abound, including that it will be released tomorrow and that Hillary is working her hardest to build plausible deniability so she doesn't look the villain. Supposedly the words spoken by Mrs. Obama are something like this:

“Once again, the white man keeps us down, what’s up with Whitey, Why’d he attack Iraq, Why’d he let Katrina happen, Why’d he leave millions of children behind. This is the legacy the white man gives us”

The repeated "why'd he" could also be/sound like "whitey", which makes the alleged transcript more credible.

(HT: also Instapundit.)

It's just a rumor at the moment, but there may be a video of Michelle Obama ranting against "whitey" from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ.

But the real reason for Obama’s extraordinary freakout is that he fears the release of the videotape, reported here, of Michelle Obama in the pulpit of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church railing against “whitey.” And we don’t mean Whitey Ford. Four Republican sources have told me that the tape exists. I’ve also been informed that Karl Rove and his allies have a copy of it and are using it to raise funds for independent expenditure groups. The tape, I’m told, will be disclosed as the GOP October Surprise. It’s a ticking time bomb.

Apparently some television network has the video. Bryan McAffee points out that if the rumors are true this video will be a game-changer.

Of course, if true, the implications are going to be very far reaching and we will either see SDs [southern Democrats] start to go for Hillary in droves, or McCain wins in a 50 state landslide. I don’t know if this will turn out to be a legitimate tape or not, but there is a lesson in here for both parties to learn. The reason why people who have only served for 2 years as a Senator don’t run for POTUS is not about experience per se, its about vetting. Say what you want about Hillary, by now we know all her dirty laundry, from the Rose Law Firm, to buying cattle futures and travelgate. Everything we need to know about Hillary has already been out there and discussed, believed or dismissed. The same cannot be said about Obama. In fact, we know very little about the man. Having lived in Illinois for 15 years, I can tell you that Chicago politics is very corrupt. There is all sorts of slime and corruption that goes on in that particular arena. The fact is, Obama has not been vetted. We do not know everything that he has been through.

As to why the tape has not yet surfaced, rumor is the GOP is holding it for a fall surprise. I’m sure Hillary wishes she found that tape first (if it exists).

I can't decide if I want to video to come out before the Democrat's convention, or before the general election. I know one thing though: I love rumor and innuendo!