Hamas thumbs its nose at Clinton.

What a farce the entire "peace process" is. The latest to and fro between Secretary State Hilary Clinton and Hamas clearly shows this. The Jerusalem Post reports that Clinton said

"They must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and
abide by previous commitments, she said of Hamas, "otherwise, I don't think it
will result in the kind of positive step forward either for the Palestinian
people or as a vehicle for a reinvigorated effort to obtain peace that leads to
a Palestinian state."

The Post provides Hamas' response: "Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan reportedly said that the group will not recognize Israel nor comply with the conditions set by the Quartet."

The world demands that Israel negotiate and recognize people who refuse to accept the continued existence of Israel. The people received Gaza and used it as a launching pad for rockets aimed at civilians in southern Israel. Rather than using the opportunity to develop industry to support the people of Gaza, resources were used to buy rockets and other weapons.

Clinton is absolutely correct. Until Hamas and other Arab leaders recognize Israel, continued efforts to bring about peace are hopeless. All that can occur is a temporary truce for Hamas to rebuild its armaments for more attacks on Israel.

Where are the international law advocates?

The Gazans continue to violate international law by launching rockets at civilians in Israel. There seems once again to be nothing but silence from the international law advocates so quick to attack Israel when it defends itself.

Why aren't the international law advocates speaking out against these attacks on civilian targets?

Does the Freemen appointment indicate the direction the Obama administration will take toward Israel?

Everyone with any concern about Israel should read this posting at the Weekly Standard Blog about the appointment of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC).

While this should surprise no one in view of the people Obama befriended over the years, most undoubtedly convinced themselves that he would be more balanced in his appointments. One can only hope that this does not represent the direction his administration will take in the Middle East.

Obama Interior Department puts ideology before reality, not change I can believe in.

The Institute for Energy Research says that a decision by the Interior Department will withhold oil shale reserves from development. These reserves equal the total reserves of the Middle East. This certainly isn't the change that I can believe in.

Interior announced that it plans to withdraw from consideration acreage in "Colorado, Utah and Wyoming where research and development of a small portion of our nation’s homegrown oil shale reserves had previously been scheduled to take place."

Once again ideology trumps reality among the Democrats. Over the years they have succeeded in preventing the development of oil and gas reserves in Alaska, offshore Gulf of Mexico, California, the east coast and now our oil shale reserves. Then they complain that the oil companies are conspiring to increase oil prices.

What chutzpah they have. They recently showed similar chutzpah in requiring banks to loan to non-creditworthy people and then blaming banks and decontrol for creating the resulting defaults by people the banks would never have loaned to but for Democrats' regulatory efforts.

The world must think that we're completely insane. Is this country really that stupid that we will continue to send billions of dollars to people that want to destroy the West while we refuse to develop our own energy reserves? Will our allies continue to allow our stupidity to keep the price of energy unreasonably high? If we developed our own reserves, other countries would derive the benefit of lower energy costs just as we would.

Obama is spreading panic rather than building confidence.

Dick Morris tells it like it is: "The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution."

Obama and his apologists will continue to blame everything on George W. Bush, but increasingly the problems of the market seem to be the result of Obama's disastrous policy choices and talking the market down. The market seems to be indicating a profound distrust of Obama and his policies.

As bad as his spend, spend, spend policies are, his announced decision to increase taxes may be even worse. Where does he think job creation comes from except the profits that he will tax away? Increased taxes was one of the disastrous mistakes made by FDR that delayed the recovery in the 1930s. It looks as if his pupil will replay that mistake.

MIT Study warns of unintended consequences resulting from cellulosic biofuels production.

The MIT study warns of potential unintended consequences of an aggressive cellulosic biofuels program. Development of large land resources necessary to produce plant fibers to produce the biofuels would require conversion of forest reserves or land now producing food crops. Either approach would have significant environmental consequences.

While cellulosic biofuels provide a promising source of energy in the future, its use cannot be viewed as without potentially serious environmental consequences. This suggests that no serious alternative energy source comes without its own set of potential environmental consequences.

Business as usual in Congress.

Fox News reports that the House has voted to "kill a resolution calling for an ethics investigation into potential quid pro quo between lobbyist campaign donations and lawmakers." Nothing new here, nothing surprising, just business as usual.

Of course, providing campaign contributions is legal. Legislators' sponsoring earmarks for expenditures that benefit particular companies is legal and permitted under House rules. However, any agreements to provide campaign contributions in exchange for earmarks benefiting the company whose officers or lobbyists make the contributions would appear to be bribery.

According to Fox News, "Flake's resolution was a direct response to the ongoing federal investigation into the PMA Group, a lobbying company accused of making fraudulent donations to lawmakers using names of people who did not exist." Such donations would be illegal as to PMA, but not necessarily as to the recipient of the donations. They would not necessarily be held to know their fraudulent nature. However, lawmakers cannot turn a blind eye to illegal conduct.

The vote on the bill was along party lines with only 17 Democrats joining Republicans in a 226-182 losing vote.

Biden makes up "facts" on the fly.

KSLA News in Shreveport, Louisiana, quotes Vice President Joe Biden on the Early Show as saying that "in Louisiana there's 400 people a day losing their jobs, what's he doing?" He was attacking Governor Bobby Jindal for doing nothing about the lost jobs.

Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission disputes Biden's claim. She says that "not only is Louisiana not losing jobs, 'The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment.'" In December 2008, only Louisiana and the District of Columbia added to employment.

The report treats this as yet another "gaffe" by the gaffe prone Biden. The report says, "It's unclear where the VP gets his numbers, but they certainly don't match numbers from the labor department." A gaffe is Biden asking the disabled war veteran to stand up without realizing that he was seated in a wheel chair.

In this case, Biden made up numbers out of thin air to advance his position. That is far more serious than a simple "gaffe." A local media outlet called Biden on it, but will any other MSM outlet challenge him?

Islam without political correctness.

The time has come to face the realities of Islam without the constraints of political correctness. This does not imply hatred or prejudice against Islam as a religion or Muslims as individuals. It simply requires that we apply the same standards and techniques of the historical critical method to Islam and the Qur’an as have been applied to Judaism, Christianity and the Bible for over 100 years. Obviously, many in the West as well as committed Muslims find it beneficial to use the tools of political correctness to attack anyone who raises any questions about Islam.

Islam radically opposes all enquiries into the historical origins of the Qur’an and the faith. The great embarrassment of Islam and its Achilles tendon arises from the lack of historical or archaeological evidence to support its claims. It desperately seeks to hide that reality by insisting that the Qur’an and traditions were passed by word of mouth for generations until carefully written down by devoted followers of Muhammad.

Christianity looks to the gospels written approximately 40-70 years after the death of Jesus while Paul’s letters date about 20-30 years from Jesus’ death. The question of faithful transmission of Jesus’ words constitutes a major issue as a result of the generation between spoken and written word. However, this gap pales to insignificance when compared to the Qur’an and Islamic traditions.

Extant writings of the Islamic traditions date from 150-200 years after the supposed death of Muhammad in 632 AD, an enormous period of time for accurate oral transmission. This gap of more than 7 generations may explain the creation of Aisha, the 9 year old bride of a 52 year old Muhammad as a desperate attempt to bridge the vast gap of generations between Muhammad’s death and the writing of the traditions.

Scholars question the accuracy of the oral transmission of Christian traditions across 40-70 years, yet most historians seem to accept as accurate the oral transmission of Islamic traditions across 150-200 years. However, recent scholarship raises serious doubts as to the historical origins of the Qur’an and Islam. Scholars point out that no historical or archaeological evidence supports the existence of either Muhammad or Mecca as described in Islamic traditions.

Democratic governor of Missouri: Let them eat cake.

Don't worry about the budget deficits that Team Obama are creating, says the Democratic governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon. Nixon said "that 'the debt' the country 'may have' as a result of the bill will get paid off by people's 'kids and grandkids.'"

Do Democrats not realize how tone deaf they are appearing. Can anyone act more cavalierly toward the massive debt being created by Team Obama than to say that our kids and grandkids will pay off our debt. Why not just say, "Let them eat cake." That is really the message of Obama and Nixon to the next generations.

The stimulus is about ideology and proving Reagan wrong.

Bob Krumm gets it right when he says that the stimulus package is about proving Reagan wrong. He continues, "It’s about proving that an enlightened government is superior to a country led by tens of millions of individual sovereign decision makers."

Democrats believe that a small number of career politicians and bureaucrats can make better decisions for Americans than can millions of individuals in their own lives. This seems particularly strange when Democrats so fanatically argue for individual choice for even minors in abortion decisions and insist on giving the vote to even felons and illegal aliens.

Democrats emphasize the need for even the least educated to make political decisions, but deny everyone the right to make economic decisions in their own lives. In reality, a free polity requires a free economy. Government control of the economy leads inevitably to government control of political discussion and choice.

Only by controlling political life can the politicians and bureaucrats maintain control over economic decisions. We already see movement by Democrats to reimpose the "Fairness Doctrine" to eliminate conservative voices in talk radio.

Mickey Kaus nails the "card check" quesiton.

Kaus describes his experience in a neighborhood election on the question of instituting parking restrictions. His neighbors strongly supported the proposition, while he opposed it. He was grateful for the secret ballot that allowed him to vote his conscience. As he said, "If we had to vote in public, I would probably have had to support my neighbors."

This explains why unions want "card check" to allow for public balloting whether to require union representation in a business. Physical intimidation isn't required for the results of a public ballot to differ from secret ballot. "All that's required is a desire not to tell your pro-union buddy to his face that you think he's wrong."

Of course, that is precisely why we use a secret ballot in all federal, state and local elections. We can vote our conscience in the privacy of the election booth without fear of what our neighbor may think.

Does anyone truly believe that Israel would continue war if the Arabs accepted Israel as a Jewish state?

The time has long passed for the world to face reality about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Undoubtedly, it will continue to refuse to do so for reasons of political correctness, anti-Semitism and simple blindness.

Assume for the purposes of analysis that the Palestinians and their financiers truly accepted the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Assume that they were willing to accept the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian state with no plan to use it to destroy Israel. Does anyone truly think that Israelis would continue to fight a war against the Palestinians under such circumstances?

Peace would occur the moment the Palestinians accepted the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Only the continued intransigence of Arabs in not accepting the existence of Israel prevents true peace. Until that changes, lasting peace cannot occur.

Those who want peace between Arab and Israeli need to persuade the Arabs to accept Israel's existence rather than lecturing Israel about the need for peace negotiations.

Question to EU officials: Are the Palestinians willing to accept lasting peace with Israel as a Jewish state?

The Jerusalem Post reports that "EU officials raised concerns Monday over the commitment of Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu to pursue genuine peace talks with the Palestinians."

Do they not have even greater concern about the commitment of the Palestinians to pursue genuine peace talks with the Israelis? Hamas has made it clear in its founding documents that the destruction of Israel is their goal. Use of Gaza as a launching site for rockets against Israel shows the likely result of any similar withdrawal from the West Bank.

Nothing in the history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians suggests a willingness on the part of the Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel or a willingness to live in peace with a Jewish Israel. All of the negotiations indicate only a desire by Palestinians for temporary cessation of hostilities until they can rearm for more terrorist attacks against Israel.

The EU seems to overlook that reality to attack only Netanyahu for supposedly acting in bad faith. I have no doubt that Netanyahu, like other Israelis, would gladly reach an agreement with the Palestinians if there were any likelihood that such agreement would really create lasting peace.

The real impediment to peace and peace negotiations remains the unwillingness of Palestinians and their financiers to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The EU needs to find a way to change that rather than attacking Netanyahu.

Wanting the administration to succeed doesn't require accepting bad policy.

Rick Santelli says,

“I want the new administration to win this one,” Santelli
said. “We are all Americans. We want to win this one. It’s a question whether
spending our children’s money is going to make us win or not, or is it going to
take its own time to heal, like a cold going away. And all this money we’re
spending isn’t going to get a very good return and when it’s over, we’re going
to be in the hole deep.”

We are constantly lectured that every good American must want President Obama to succeed. I wonder where these voices were during the last administration. Of course, everyone wants the administration to win. If they win, we all win.

That doesn't mean that we have to blindly accept ridiculous policies that we think have no chance of success. It doesn't mean that everyone has to accept whatever pronouncements the administration makes.

The new administration can succeed only if it implements good policies. Americans still have the right to free speech to advocate policies they believe to be good and oppose policies they believe to be bad. That remains true even if some of the policies believed bad are those of the present administration.

Taking a bullet train to bankruptcy.

Maureen Dowd warns that the country is taking a bullet train to bankruptcy. She goes on to say,

Though he demonstrated in the campaign that he has a rare gift for
inspiring the country with new belief in itself, Mr. Obama has not yet captured
either the grit the moment requires or the fury it provokes. He has not
explained in a compelling way why Americans who followed the rules need to
sacrifice more to help those who flouted the rules.

When Ms. Dowd takes President Obama on, that does not bode well for the new administration. Are the liberals at the New York Times having doubts about the candidate they worked so hard to elect president? The first 100 days aren't even past yet.

Ms. Dowd also attacks Obama's Attorney General for his "nation of cowards" comment. She reminds that Eric Holder showed precious little courage in standing up to Bill Clinton in the pardoning of Marc Rich.

She contends that "We need leaders to help us through our crises, not provide us with crude evaluations of our character. And we don’t need sermons from liberal virtuecrats, anymore than from conservative virtuecrats." This seems to apply to Obama as well as Holder.

Rather than provide leadership in a time of crisis, Obama and his administration seem capable only of campaign rhetoric and attacks on individuals and the public at large. When even Times writers begin writing about the problem, the honeymoon is already over long before the 100 days are past.

Who is going to loan the money for the stimulus package?

CNN reports that 70,000 factories have closed in China and 20 million Chinese workers have lost their jobs. Who is going to loan Obama the money to pay for his re-elect Democrats, I mean, stimulus bill?

The Obama administration - a very poor junior varsity team.

Liz Peek reports in the Wall Street Journal that President Obama has proposed three massive spending plans since his inauguration. She concludes that "Investors, among others, have panned the plans; the stock market is off nearly 10% from the day before the inauguration, or more than 800 points on the Dow Jones Industrial Average."

While the underlying issues certainly preceded Obama's presidency, investors now are indicating a lack of confidence in the direction the administration is taking the country. Obama may not be blamed for the existence of the financial crisis, but he will be judged on his ability to solve it.

Peek suggests that many now have the "creeping fear that we’re dealing with the Junior Varsity." I fear that this may actually overstate the ability of the new administration at this point.

Having just attended a girl's soccer game played by the JV from my daughter's high school, I want to extend that metaphor a little. In season's past, the JV has been very little behind the school's Varsity team. This season, however, the JV simply lacks enough quality players; most of their players may never have the skills to play at the varsity level.

Unfortunately, that may be the case with this administration. The problem may not be a need to come together as a team as with any new team, but the basic lack of ability of too many players ever to move from the JV to the Varsity. Even with some time to organize, team Obama may not rise to the level of a Varsity.

AP discovers ethically challenged Democrats.

The Democrats must be having serious ethics issues when the AP writes about the problem. Larry Margasak provides the long list of the ethically challenged Democrats in Washington just during the last 2 months.

He mentions Burris, Murtha, Blagojevich, Rangel, Daschle, Killefer, Geithner, Richardson and Lynn. That's quite a long list for just a short period of time.

From my perspective, the problem appears not to be a Democratic problem any more than the prior issues were a Republican issue. The real problem results from far too much power over far too much money being given to individuals in Washington.

Rather than saying the Democrats are corrupt, we need to change how Washington does business to reduce the temptations of the huge sums of money involved. This suggests the need for a flat tax with no deductions to eliminate legislation creating tax loopholes. It requires the elimination of earmarks.

Senator Grassley smells a rat ...

Byron York at the DC Examiner quotes Senator Charles Grassley as saying, "It’s fitting that the acronym for this board is RAT,” he was prepared to tell the Senate, “because that’s what I smell here.” He is referring to the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board created by the stimulus bill.

The stimulus bill gives the RAT Board "authority to ask 'that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.'” Inspector generals traditionally act as watchdogs, independent of the management of the various agencies and the White House.

Creation of the RAT Board threatens that independence by allowing another entity veto particular investigations or require others. While the bill provides a procedure to avoid the RAT Board's edict, it imposes such requirements that would likely deter many inspectors general.

One would think that such radical change in the oversight of federal agencies would occur only after thorough hearing and debate in Congress. In fact, Senator Grassley learned of its existence only after the stimulus bill was passed. He heard from an inspector general who would be affected by the new law.

According to Senator Grassley, the provision was "snuck in" without debate. York could find no one who would admit to the "paternity" of the provision. York writes that when he asked the office of one Democratic Senator, "one who is a big fan of inspectors general, I was told the RAT Board was 'something the Obama administration wanted included in this bill.'” When he asked the White House, staffers said that they would have to look into it.

What other rats are scurrying around in the stimulus bill that haven't been brought to light?

Earmarks and campaign contributions ...

CQ reports that more than 100 House members secured earmarks for clients of a lobbying firm and received over $1.8 million in campaign contributions from the firm's political action committee and some of its employees. The article doesn't report the campaign contributions provided by employees of the corporate recipients of the earmark funds.

The lobbying firm, PMA Group, has connections to Rep. John Murtha (D. Penn.) To be fair, CQ reports that "Of the 104 lawmakers who lent their names to earmark requests for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending law, 91 have, since 2001, received campaign money linked to PMA, either from its political action committee or its employees." Thus, more than 13 did not receive contributions. Again, it must be noted that the report doesn't look at contributions from the employees of the firms receiving the benefit of the earmarks.

Of course, nothing is necessarily illegal in giving or receiving campaign contributions. Also, earmarks are permitted under the present House rules. However, the giving of campaign contributions to obtain a US Senate seat or to receive the benefit of earmarks would seem to have the potential to violate bribery laws.

At a minimum, the entire earmark business raises serious ethical issues. It avoids the protections afforded by the appropriations process and the federal procurement process. It substitutes political connection for merit and price based decisions made in the course of the procurement process.

Not only do we face potential ethical issues involved in campaign cash for earmarks, but there may also be massive waste in unnecessary appropriations being made outside the appropriations process. Perhaps even more damaging and difficult to determine, firms winning political connections and earmarks may be providing inferior products and services to our defense department that may weaken our defenses.

Biofuels crops seen as threat to tropical forests.

It seems that every proposed new source of energy gets shot down as being a threat to one thing or another. Now biofuel crops are a threat to tropical forests. Every potential energy source presents some downside threat to some sacred cow of the environmentalists.

White House says that it opposes revival of the "fairness doctrine."

Fox News reports that the White House opposes the revival of the "fairness doctrine." Fox quotes a White House spokesperson, Ben LaBolt saying, "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."

Unfortunately, we have already seen Speaker Pelosi take control of the "stimulus package" and the White House passively watch. Would Obama stand up to Congressional Democrats if they pushed legislation through? Would he really lead opposition within the Democratic Party to revival of the doctrine.

I seriously doubt that Obama would take any action in opposition to Congressional Democrats' revival of the fairness doctrine. To date he has shown no willingness or ability to challenge his own party's leadership. I doubt that he will begin with the fairness doctrine.

Muslim violence wins another round.

This shows the direction the world is going. Sweden will not allow spectators in the Davis Cup tennis match between Sweden and Israel. They fear Muslims will attack fans or Israeli tennis players.

Another Ponzi scheme?

Financier R. Allen Stanford appears to be a desaparecido, no doubt to hide from the law and his investors. Like Madoff before him, he apparently heavily invested in campaign contributions to Washington.

According to ABC, "among the top recipients: Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Congressman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the members who took a trip to Antigua where he was entertained by Stanford." This suggests that Stanford contributed equally to both parties.

Riehl World presents a somewhat different impression. He points to thousands of dollars going to Barack Obama conveniently not mentioned by ABC. The contributions to Obama seem to dwarf those to McCain, Sessions or Cornyn, but go unmentioned. Inquiring minds want to know why.

Quick research shows that his contributions went 77% to Democrats and 21% to Republicans, with 3% to "others."

More bad news for Senator Burris.

Senator Burris now faces an investigation by a prosecutor over allegations of perjury. One Democratic fund raiser in Chicago says, “I like Roland Burris, but I think the only dignified thing for him to do is end the circus and resign.”

Chrysler and GM ask for subsidies of $39 billion today; how much next time?

After receiving $17 billion dollars in "bailout" funds, Chrysler and GM are asking for another $39 billion. This surprises no one who read the reports of the "bailout" and the UAW refusal to modify its contracts with the companies.

Without major changes to the companies' cost structure, any "bailout" funds must properly be considered to be subsidies. Only continuing subsidies will allow the companies to continue to operate. This clearly indicates that the companies face a problem of insolvency rather than a temporary liquidity issue under their present labor contracts.

Only by borrowing ever more funds from abroad to finance the UAW gold plated retirement packages can the Obama administration protect its labor allies from facing economic reality. So long as the American taxpayer allows the Democrats to pass "bailouts" for the Big Three, they will continue with business as usual.

Clearly, only the discipline of bankruptcy will force Chrysler, GM and the UAW to find an economically realistic agreement that will allow the companies to compete without ongoing subsidies.

It depends on what "nationalization" means.

Greg Mankiw provides a rational look at what "nationalization" of banks means. True nationalization of our banking system would be a disaster. As Mankiw recognizes, this would lead to the government deciding who is deserving of credit and what projects deserve financing. This would lead to "crony capitalism, where the politically connected get the goodies, and economic stagnation awaits the rest of us."

However, temporary government financing that assists in the reorganization of insolvent banks could restore confidence in the solvency of banking institutions. Some might stimatize this as a "nationalization" of banks. So long as the government gets in and out as quickly as possible, nationalization should not be the term used to describe the process.

The real problem seems to be a lack of certainty as to the value of the many subprime loans. This makes it difficult to know how to value present shares in any reorganization. Mankiw describes this issue: "The government cannot blithely walk into banks and tell them they are insolvent when the banks are saying (pretending? hoping? praying?) otherwise."

Banks and regulators in complete good faith may not know the value of some of the subprime loans and their impact on the solvency of the bank. The key seems to be to find a way to defer final valuation of the assets until they can be determined more accurately while allowing for continuing operations as though there were no question as to the value of the assets.

Government participation in providing guarantees or capital to banks until assets can be reasonably evaluated seems to be the answer. That participation must remain temporary only until a proper reorganization can occur.

Senator Gregg withdraws as nominee for Commerce Secretary

Senator Judd Gregg withdrew his name from consideration to be Commerce Secretary. He stated that "on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me" with the Obama administration.

Too often politicians seem to put personal ambition ahead of any policy concerns. Senator Gregg is putting policy issues that he has with the administration ahead of his own personal career. One may disagree with his position on those issues, but one must admire him for taking a strong position.

Just say "no" to the "stimulus" package.

It looks as though the world rejects Obama's "stimulus" package as stocks around the world are tanking. AP reports that "World stock markets fell Thursday amid pessimism about the Obama administration's plans to fix the U.S. banking system and restore the overall health of the world's largest economy."

Democrats offer business as usual - massive spending for their constituencies.

President Obama and the Democrats preach a pending apocalypse if radical changes aren't made immediately. Yet their offered solution to the coming apocalypse is nothing but business as usual from Congressional Democrats - massive spending for their constituencies and pet projects.

In responding to the gravest threat since the Great Depression, the Democrats simply dusted off their spending wish list and put it forward as the salvation for the economy. If their massive spending programs didn't keep the economy afloat to this point, why would even more of their programs save the economy now?

Rather than conducting business as usual, the Democrats should first ask real economists what would best help bring us out of the recession. The Congressional Budget Office seems to be saying that the Democrats' proposals are a net detriment to the economy rather than a benefit.

Should terrorists captured on the battlefield have greater rights than German POWs did?

The Los Angeles Times reports that Mohammad Jawad may be released from American custody because he was not read his Miranda rights warning. Jawad was not arrested in the USA for armed robbery or theft as one might assume from that report.

Jawad was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan after having thrown a grenade that wounded two American soldiers. He confessed to his action, but was not warned of his rights not to testify against himself. Most of the evidence against him comes from his own statements.

He was not arrested by police officers trained to gather evidence of crime and to warn arrestees of their rights under Miranda as a matter of course. He was captured by soldiers on the field of battle and treated as a prisoner of war rather than a suspect in a crime. Undoubtedly, the military failed to gather evidence of the grenade's explosion or Jawad's fingerprints on the grenade.

This shows the complete lack of applicability of American criminal law and the US Constitution to the people captured on the battlefield. Jameel Jaffer with the ACLU argues, "The right way to deal with people suspected of committing terrorism crimes is to prosecute them in ordinary federal courts."

German soldiers captured on European battlefields were not tried in US federal courts; they were held in POW camps for the duration of the war. Terrorists who do not wear uniforms or belong to an organized military force should not gain greater rights than the German POWs.

Obama can no longer vote "present."

Jack Caferty desperately tries to absolve President Obama from fault in the Democratic "stimulus" fiasco by blaming Nancy Pelosi. No, Jack, Obama can't vote "present" anymore; he's president and has responsibility for providing real leadership in developing bipartisan support for his stimulus package.

He can no longer abdicate the leadership role and then blame Pelosi or Reid when they shoot themselves in the foot. He may have taken that role as the junior senator from Illinois, but he can't do it as President of the United States of America.

Jack certainly describes the Democrats and their package well: "Acting like children who hadn't seen Santa Claus for eight years, House Democrats busily loaded up the bill with stuff they had been unable to get for eight years. It was payback time." That reality doesn't absolve Obama from his failure of leadership.

Jack also correctly recognizes that Republicans offer the real answer to the economic situation facing the country. The Republicans "want more tax cuts and more real stimulus -- stuff that will create jobs now. Not some pie in the sky proposal that may pay dividends years down the road. And they're right."

Rather than continuing to support the pork laden disaster crafted by House Democrats, Obama needs to provide true leadership in bringing together Republicans and Democrats with a real stimulus package. That package would look like that proposed by Republicans as Jack indicates.

This would require that Obama abandon politics as usual that he seems to be practicing so far. Instead of attacking Republicans and tax rate reductions as the old failed answer, he needs to recognize their effectiveness as shown in prior administrations. He can even invoke John Kennedy's support of tax rate reductions to justify his position.

President with no experience hires legal researcher with no experience.

The Washington Times reports that the Obama White House hired a 29 year old as White House counsel research director. The new hire has no law degree nor any legal training. Her sole experience has been as an opposition researcher for Democratic political campaigns. Her job was to dig up dirt on Republican opponents or to prepare defenses for her Democratic candidates.

Not to worry though assures the White House. She will be doing traditional legal research for the White House lawyers. Are they kidding? She has no legal training or experience and they are going to have her do legal research? Is their budget so tight that they can't afford a junior lawyer with Harvard Law credentials and they have to hire someone with no experience whatsoever?

How can they expect a novice to work at the issues facing the White House? Oh, now I understand. The President has no real experience so they think they can bring a person with no legal experience to do legal work too.

President Obama on the "Stimulus Package" - taking orders from Democratic leadership.

Some people express surprise that President Obama allowed Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to draft the stimulus package rather than submitting his own plan. Such conduct should surprise no one.

Obama has provided zero leadership throughout his short career. Even when the country faced the financial meltdown during the presidential campaign, Obama offered no real solutions and provided no leadership. He passively said that he would wait for calls from Senate leadership.

Why would one expect him to provide leadership now? In waiting for Pelosi, he simply did as he has always done, taken his cues from Democratic leadership.

At least some Senators have the courage to oppose the new form of protectionism.

The House "Stimulus Package" has a "buy American" requirement in it. Senator John McCain proposed an amendment that would remove that requirement. His amendment lost on a 31-65 vote in which Senator Lieberman joined 30 Republicans in opposing a new form of Smoot-Hawley protectionism.

Do the Democrats want to generate a new trade war? Do they not understand that Smoot-Hawley contributed to the Great Depression? It seems that Obama and the Democrats want to enact some of the policies that turned a recession into the Great Depression.

Buy American and union-only contracts reprise two of the policy disasters of the 1930s.

At least 31 Senators had the courage to stand up against protectionism.

Unions won one, but what about the country, President Obama?

Greg Mankiw points to the union win resulting from President Obama's order to permit federal agencies to require union-only labor in contracts. He points out, however, that the win for union workers is bad news for non-union workers, but also bad news for the taxpayer who will pay more for what the government receives from the union contracts.

Mankiw also concludes that "In my judgment, it is bad news from a macroeconomic perspective. As I once learned from Professor Larry Summers, one 'cause of long-term unemployment is unionization.'"

President Roosevelt encouraged unionization under the New Deal. The increased labor costs and reduced business profits, discouraging hiring of employees and expansion of the economy. Obama seems to be going down the road of increased unemployment to pay political obligations to one of his main constituencies, the unions.

Obey on stimulus waste: "So what?" - The Hill

One would think that some Republican would accuse the Democrats of doing this, rather than one of their leaders admitting to it:

"So what?" Obey asked in response to a question on NPR's "Morning Edition" about
the perceived lack of direction from Congress as to how money in the stimulus
should be spent. "This is an emergency. We've got to simply find a way to get
this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're
doing."

The Hill quotes David Obey, the chief author of the stimulus package.

Congressional Democrats are going to spend close to $1 trillion and they don't care how it is spent? Isn't this gross negligence per se?

Lest anyone doubt it, the Democrats aren't responsible if the money is badly spent. The Hill indicates that Obey also said that "Congress is not responsible if money is misspent, but rather, whoever spends the money poorly."

So don't blame Obey or Pelosi or Obama if money goes down some rat hole and doesn't help anyone. It's not their fault. They just appropriated the money in the emergency. It's those awful people who got the money and spent it.

You just can't make this stuff up. Any novelist who tried would be panned by critics for writing things that was just too unbelievable.

The right venue for bringing America together on a stimulus package?

CNN's headline blares, "Obama fires up House Democrats to help push through stimulus bill." Mr. President, is this the proper venue and the appropriate rhetoric to argue for a bipartisan stimulus bill?

Mitt Romney hits a home run in his commentary to CNN. He summarizes the Obama stimulus package: "the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy." He should be president of the United States rather than either Obama or McCain.

He makes the critically important point that "there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus."

Obama expresses the basic error in the Democratic approach when he argues that complaints the package was a spending bill rather than a stimulus bill were off base. "What do you think a stimulus bill is?" he said. "That's the point."

No, Mr. President, that is not the point. Committing to expenditures 3 or 4 years out does not stimulate the economy now. The test of any expenditures should be whether they fund the "real needs of government that will have immediate impact." Romney contends that we should repair and replace military equipment damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.

CBO: Stimulus package worse than doing nothing in the long run.

The Washington Times reports, "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday."

Doesn't this suggest that we take a harder look at the proposal and find approaches that may have less harmful impact in the long run?

According to the Times report, the "CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing."

A cynic might ask whether this is the Democratic plan, to crowd out private investment and gain greater control of the economy for government. That control would come at a price of lower productivity and wealth, but that apparently may not deter Obama and his Democratic cohorts in the Congress.

Obama's idea of energy independence?

The AP reports, "In a high-profile reversal of the Bush administration, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Wednesday the government is scrapping the leases of 77 parcels of federal land for oil and gas drilling in Utah's redrock country."

Are these people completely stupid or so caught up in their ideology that they can't see reality anymore? The AP quotes Salazar as saying, "In the last weeks in office, the Bush administration rushed ahead to sell oil and gas leases near some of our nation's most precious landscapes in Utah." Could $4 gasoline have impacted the Bush administration's thinking?

Mr. Salazar, are there any leases in this country not near some "precious landscapes"? I suspect not. "The sales were worth $6 million to the government in addition to royalties on any oil or gas production." In addition, the action eliminated the many jobs exploration of the leases would have provided. It also prevented the production of oil and gas reserves from the properties that would have helped in increasing energy independence.

Unfortunately, this only indicates the direction we can expect from the Obama administration as it follows a hard line agenda of energy dependence on foreign oil supplies that will increase world energy prices. This will provide money to terrorist organizations and damage the world economy.

The "District of Corruption."

Norman Ornstein writes about the District of Corruption in an article that everyone should read. He writes about the corrosive effects of lobbying in Washington. Mr. Ornstein focuses on the symptoms of the disease rather than the real cause.

He points to "the sheer amount of money sloshing around. In 1970, the federal budget was all of $195 billion. Today, the budget is over $3 trillion." He recognizes that "[w]ith so many federal dollars at stake, the capital injected into the system to influence government decisions has exploded."

Mr. Ornstein contends that "President Obama's tough ethics and lobbying restrictions, the most far-reaching ever, are so welcome." Unfortunately, these restrictions treat the symptoms rather than the cause of the disease facing Washington. It seems the equivalent of the Dutch boy putting his finger in the dike. It may help a little for a while but it will not hold for long.

As mining in Washington returns greater profits than mining real ores in Montana and other locations, it will attract ever greater resources to achieve those profits. Ingenuity will find ways around the tightest ethics restrictions just as they do regulations on campaign contributions.

In fact, President Obama has already waived his own rules to allow former lobbyists into his administration. This hardly encourages one to think that his restrictions are as tough or far reaching as Mr. Ornstein suggests. More importantly, it shows the inability of such restrictions in solving the real problem.

The real solution lies in reducing the benefits of winning influence in Washington and increasing the transparency of those working in the Washington mines. The real scandal of Tom Daschle is not his failure to pay taxes, but that he earned such massive income in such a short period of time based solely on his connections as a former Senator.

That scandal seems to arise also in the recent revelation that Leon Panetta earned more than $700,000 for speaches and consulting since the beginning of 2008. Mr. Panetta may be a great speaker, but that is a lot of money.

This suggests in no way that either Mr. Daschle or Mr. Panetta is less than an honorable man or that they did anything illegal or unethical. It simply indicates the massive sums of money available for people who have held positions of authority in Washington and who may provide influence with those presently in positions of power.

Elected officials should continue to report their income and its sources for 10 years after they leave office just as they did while in office. This will shine some light into the process.

The only effective solution to the problem lies in three areas. First, we must reduce the size of government and the budget. Second, the influence of elected officials over the recipients of government expenditures must be eliminated. Ear marks exemplify this problem. Third, Congress must simplify tax rules to take the incentive out of continual lobbying to win tax breaks.

The right to bear arms in English history.

Joyce Lee Malcolm provides an excellent discussion of English history behind the American 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: http://www.guncite.com/journals/maltrad.html

In medieval times, the right to bear arms was not merely a right, but a requirement. Able bodied men joined together in the militia. Custom required that they maintain their own arms.

However, the conflicts of the 17th century between Catholic and Protestant, King and Parliament greatly complicated the rights of citizens to keep weapons. Malcolm provides an excellent discussion of the evolution of the law and English Bill of Rights relating to weapons.

Keynesians in Congress need to read Keynes.

Greg Mankiw provides an interesting quote from Keynes about using public works projects in a stimulus package to increase demand in a recession:

Organized public works, at home and abroad, may be the right cure for a
chronic tendency to a deficiency of effective demand. But they are not capable
of sufficiently rapid organisation (and above all cannot be reversed or undone
at a later date), to be the most serviceable instrument for the prevention of
the trade cycle.

Thus, Keynesian theory would seem to oppose the House Democratic stimulus package. The package envisages expenditures that cannot be spent rapidly in this year and that cannot be reversed at a later date. In fact, the package commits most expenditures in outlying years.

President Obama, meet Larry Summers, Director of the White House National Economic Council

Greg Mankiw juxtaposes Larry Summers' opinion as to the detrimental effects of unionization on employment with President Obama's view of unionization as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Summers concludes that "Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy."

At a time when unemployment threatens to increase and deepen the recession facing this country, one would think that the administration would defer any implementation of policies that lead to greater unionization. Some economists suggest that President Roosevelt's policies that encouraged unionization may have delayed recovery from the depression in the 1930s.

Yet President Obama signed three executive orders that "expanded workers rights and reversed Bush administration orders that were seen as anti-union." President Obama, phone Mr. Summers and get his opinion about increased unionization's impact on employment.

President Obama, you're kidding aren't you?

The New York Post reports President Obama as saying about those released from Guantanamo, "Can we guarantee that they're not going to try to participate in another attack? No," Obama said in an NBC interview that aired today. "But what I can guarantee is that if we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaeda."

I'm sorry, but the Constitution does not apply to terrorists captured on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. It applies to citizens and those living in the United States of America. The question as to how to protect citizens from the unbridled power of government simply does not apply to people captured on a foreign battlefield.

We know that at least 61 terrorists already released have rejoined the jihad against the USA even though the Bush administration thought they were the least dangerous of the prisoners. How many of the worst of the worst will return to jihad and what action will they take?

At least President Obama is honest enough to admit that he can't guarantee that those he releases won't participate in another attack. Based on history, one can guarantee that many will participate in such attacks.

Furthermore, the president grossly misrepresents reality by suggesting that Guantanamo constitutes a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Al Qaeda recruits join for far more fundamental reasons than whether a few people are detained in Guantanamo. Guantanamo could have never existed and al Qaeda would have recruited as many people.

Democrats: Cut defense spending but increase the pork.

Fox reports that Team Obama is demanding that defense spending be cut by 10%, approximately $55 billion.

This comes at a time when Democrats in the House of Representatives passed a pork laden spending bill that can be defended only by arguing that any government expenditure is good in a stimulus package.

Thus, according to the Democrats, any government expenditure is a good one except one to defend the country. Undoubtedly, some fat can be cut in the Defense budget as in any government budget.

The Defense budget provides very real jobs for very real people in this country. Reducing the budget will mean job cuts in good paying industry at a time that many companies are laying people off.

The Wall Street Journal describes some of the spending in the House stimulus package: "There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons."

Do the House Democrats seriously contend that these expenditures will provide stimulus to the economy that $55 billion in defense spending will not? We are in two very real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very real questions continue as to the reality of man made global warming. Yet the Democrats want to cut defense spending as they appropriate almost $3 billion for global warming projects.

It appears that the Democrats are more intent on using the financial crisis as an excuse to push their usual agendas rather than providing serious policy proposals that deal with the crisis.

A big Oops from Tom Daschle.

John J. Pitney at the Corner dug up a great quote from then Senator Tom Daschle: "Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter."

So, Senator Daschle, how should IRS enforce our laws to the letter for someone who fails to pay his taxes?

I just wonder how understanding Democrats or the media would be toward Republican appointees with similar tax failures. Somehow I doubt that they would be equally understanding toward a former president of a large corporation who failed to pay his/her taxes until appointed to high government office.

Why a new New Deal when the orginal New Deal failed?

Everyone knows that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved the country from the ravages of the Great Depression with his New Deal. We've been taught for decades that Herbert Hoover's blind adherence to laissez faire economics led to the Great Depression and Roosevelt's increased regulations and spending saved the country.

However, did FDR really save the country with the New Deal? Some economists and writers are now challenging conventional wisdom and many historians' picture of the USA in the 1930s.

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian summarize their findings about the New Deal in an article in the Wall Street Journal. In view of Democrats' desire to implement a new New Deal for the present financial crisis, everyone should read the article to get an insight into the results of the original New Deal.

Cole and Ohanian conclude that "Our research indicates that New Deal labor and industrial policies prolonged the Depression by seven years." They point to studies that show that the economy should have recovered by 1935 or 1936 by simply following ordinary economic policies. New Deal policies allowed wages to rise to levels in excess of productivity growth which depressed production and employment.

This resulted in the downturn of 1937-1938 which created a "recession in a depression." Thus, the New Deal does not provide the easily followed guide for economic recovery as many would have it. Instead, Cole and Ohanian contend that the "main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences."