Would the country have been better off doing nothing rather than passing the Obama stimulus package? Obama's numbers say "yes."

It's hard to criticize an economic plan that hasn't had much time to take effect. However, when the proponents of the plan presented numbers that showed the effects of not implementing their plan compared to the results from their plan and those comparisons are within the present time frame, one must take note.

Innocent Bystanders presents a chart that compares the Obama Team's prediction of unemployment numbers with and without their Stimulus Plan to the actual unemployment numbers. It doesn't look good for the country or Team Obama. So far, it looks like we would have been better off doing nothing rather than passing the Obama plan. These are not Republican or opposition numbers, but Obama's numbers.

No politics involved here; just move along.

It's good that no politics are involved in GM's decisions to close plants. Barney Frank was able to convince the GM CEO to keep a plant in his district open at least 14 months. It's only a coincidence that Barney Frank is chair of the House committee that oversees the government bailout plan.

The Constitutional Power to Interpret International Law

An excellent law review article regarding international law and the power of the three branches of US government to interpret it under the US Constitution.

The growing lack of credibility among international organizations.

Amnesty International continues to lose credibility by issuing such reports as the one reported here. In Amnesty's world, Israel is solely responsible for the "breakdown in the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that led to Operation Cast Lead."

No, it couldn't have been affected by several years of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. This one comment in the Jerusalem Post article gives all the needed information to weigh the credibility of the Amnesty Article report:

the report states that the Gaza smuggling tunnels are used to move food and
fuel, but does not mention arms smuggling.

Amnesty International ignores the role that the tunnels play in smuggling rockets and other arms into Gaza. In their view the tunnels merely allow the Gazans to smuggle food and fuel into Gaza. Of course, the Israelis appear bad in trying to keep the border closed if only food and fuel were being brought in.

Have people actually read the "torture" memos they are so quick to condemn?

I have had a similar reaction to that of Victoria Toensing as to whether critics of the "torture" memoranda have actually bothered to read either the memoranda or the applicable law. Most of the poseurs who preen in their self righteous fury against enhanced interrogation techniques never seem to bother refuting the memoranda's arguments or show how the EITs specifically violate US law.

Instead, as Ms. Toensing says, the "Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos." They seem to take the position that they know torture when they see it and they don't need no stinkin' law to support their position. Anyone who objects to their position is an unamerican, Nazi who condones torture that destroys the high moral standing of the USA in the world. As with most arguments of this character, they add a great deal of heat, but no light.

It seems to me that everyone should take a deep breath and actually look at the memos and the law. But, hey, what do I know; I'm only a lawyer like Ms. Toensing.

Furthermore, in looking at the law, one must remember the constitutional requirement that criminal law be strictly construed so as to give adequate notice of conduct subject to criminal sanction. Some of the applicable law may be too vague to meet this constitutional requirement.

New York Times: "Minorities hardest hit by subprime fiasco." Not suprising, Democrats targeted minorities for the program.

This story should make readers cry for the people caught up in the subprime fiasco and furious at the Democrats and their media enablers who created the subprime program. Of course, one also has to acknowledge that individuals made decisions to accept subprime loans that they could not afford. No one forced them to do so.

The New York Times reports on the effects of requiring the financial community to issue subprime loans in "Minorities Hit Hardest by Foreclosures in New York." Of course, the Times carefully averts its eyes from the Democratic politicians who demanded that such loans be made to create home ownership in minority communities.

One certainly understands and supports the concept of home ownership as an excellent way of building wealth in minority households. The goal was admirable, but the methods employed led to disaster in the financial sector and for the individuals caught up in the subprime scheme.

The story tells poignant stories of individuals trying to better their families' lives. "Now subprime loans and a crippled economy have laid many of those families low. Olive M. Thompson, a 45-year-old nursing assistant, lost her $215,000, four-bedroom Cape in January, but not before she drained her 401(k) and declared bankruptcy."

I don't know Ms. Thompson's income level or how much she put down on the home. It would appear that she could have afforded to buy a home, but not one for $215,000. A subprime loan allowed her to buy a nicer place that she apparently could not afford. Now she has lost her home, her life savings and is in bankruptcy.

So how helpful was the Democrats' subprime loan program for Ms. Thompson and the minority community that they targeted for the program? Once again unintended consequences flow from a do-good program offered by the Democratic Party. Of course, pointing that out or opposing the original program wins one charges of being heartless and racist.

The Times touches on this, but fails to draw the correct conclusions:

This holds a special poignancy. Just four or five years ago, black
home ownership was rising sharply, after decades in which discriminatory lending
and zoning practices discouraged many blacks from buying. Now, as damage ripples
outward, black families in foreclosure lose savings and credit, neighbors see
the value of their homes decline, and renters are evicted.

Unfortunately, black home ownership was rising sharply because of subprime loans. This suggests that prior lack of loans was not the result of discrimination, but largely the application of normal lending standards. Democrats' regulations set aside those standards to require subprime loans. Now the minority community is paying the price in foreclosures, lost savings and credit.

Will the Times call the Democrats out for their snake oil economics? Never. Instead, the Times will continue to support all of the Democrats' snake oil economics programs.

He/she who lives by the sword ... and all that.

Poor Democrats. They derived the benefit of CIA leaks for so many years. After attacking the CIA for torture and President Obama's calculated leak of carefully selected CIA documents to try to make the Company look bad, the CIA leaked other information that makes Democratic leadership look bad.

Now Senator Levin and others are whining. How dare the CIA leak documents that hurt Democrats. Don't they know that they are only supposed to do that to hurt Republicans?

Senator Levin, if there were nothing embarrassing to Democrats in the documents, they would get no attention and you wouldn't be whining about them. Obama leaked documents embarrassing to the CIA in a calculated attempt to hurt the Bush administration. The CIA leaked docments to give context to Obama's leaked documents.

According to Politico, "A top congressional official who has participated in the briefings added: 'I think the agency wanted to get this out, quite frankly.'" You think?