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?

The real culture war is not about abortion but free enterprise.

Arthur C. Brooks argues in an article in the Wall Street Journal that "The Real Culture War is Over Capitalism." He correctly points to a majority who recognize free enterprise as a fundamental principle of this country's success. He says that "Social Democrats are working to create a society where the majority are net recipients of the "sharing economy."

Present tax policy and that advocated by President Obama support the movement to that "sharing economy." Brooks says that "the percentage of American adults who have no federal income-tax liability will rise to 49% from 40% under Mr. Obama's tax plan. Another 11% will pay less than 5% of their income in federal income taxes and less than $1,000 in total."

If Obama's proposals are enacted, 60% of the population will pay 0-5% of their income in federal income taxes. As a decreasing percentage of the population pay the costs of government, Democrats assume that they can easily increase the burden of tax and government with the support of the non-tax paying majority.

White House threatens Chrysler creditors: Obama is a madman willing to do anything to get his way.

It looks like Tom Lauria's statements that the Obama administration had threatened his clients with attacks by the White House press corps are being confirmed by others: "New Allegations of White House Threats Over Chrysler."

While the focus has been on threats against Perella Weinberg, other firms seem to be confirming that they also felt threatened. Of course, the article says that "None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions."

The tactic employed by the White House seems rather shocking:

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was
to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in
which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do
anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by
his firm.

Obama's troops are presenting him as being a madman willing to do anything to get his way and the threatened believe it.

The article cited comments from two participants in the negotiations:

One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies
the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama
was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both
were voters for Obama in the last election.

These are not hard core Republicans attempting to get even for election defeats. These are people who voted for Obama and are finding out how radical he really is.

The White House had denied the initial statements by Lauria. The question now seems to be whether they will hold the line in face of additional and even stronger statements. Undoubtedly, they expect the White House press corps to provide them with cover just as they expected the media to act as attack dogs against Perella Weinberg.

One central fact has to be remembered. Perella Weinberg and the other creditors are asking only what they would normally receive in any bankruptcy proceeding. The Obama administration wants them to take substantially less to protect the United Auto Workers.

In effect, Obama demands that Perella Weinberg's clients take a bigger hit so the UAW doesn't have to. This simply introduces hardball politics into what should be governed by the rule of law. The UAW gave money and support to Obama and the Democrats so they get the power of the presidency behind their position in the bankruptcy proceeding.

This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It threatens the entire system of finance by introducing an uncertainty into all financings. In finance the usual response to uncertainty is higher interest rates.

Lawyer says that White House threatened to use the White House press corps to destroy company's reputation.

Jake Tapper at ABC News reports that "White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation." Tapper says that

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told
ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's
Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that
if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the
White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

The White House denied the story. What do the surrounding circumstances suggest as to who is more likely to be telling the truth, the White House or Thomas Lauria, the attorney for some of the creditors.

First, the threat of using the White House press corps to destroy the reputation of the creditor shocks on several levels. It suggests that the White House believes that the press corps will do its bidding even in attacking a business attempting to protect its economic interest. The White House certainly has sufficient evidence that the mainstream media will do its bidding based on its conduct during the campaign and the first 100 days.

It also indicates a willingness of the White House to destroy a private company simply for opposing a program pushed by the administration. The company simply attempted to assert its rights as a secured creditor under bankruptcy law. Tapper quoted Lauria as saying that his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt" with Chrysler."

President Obama previously said that "a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none." In fact, according to Lauria, the secured creditors were willing to accept substantially less than what was owed them, but not as little as the White House wanted.

Obama said, "I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices." It seems that Obama himself has already laid the predicate for the White House press corps to attack the company. The only defense the White House spokesperson could offer was to deny that it occurred and "there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

I'm sorry, but you make the claim that the other side can't prove something when you did what was alleged and hope there are no smoking guns that prove otherwise. In fact, Mr. Lauria seems far more credible and his statements more believable than the White House.

Why should anyone join the CIA counterterrorism effort today?

Stratfor reports on "A Chilling Effect on U.S. Counterterrorism." Does President Obama really think that his promise not to prosecute those who conducted the interrogations corrects for the actions of Congressional Democrats to call for "truth commissions" and prosecution for "torture" of al Qaeda terrorists?

Stratfor argues that:

Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos’ release is
that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism
efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many
of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to
be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying
out lawful orders under a previous administration. It is hard to retain officers
and attract quality recruits in this kind of environment. It has become safer to
work in programs other than counterterrorism.

The memos’ release will not have a catastrophic effect on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Indeed, most of the information in the memos was leaked to the press years ago and has long been public knowledge. However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.

Obama now says that he won't prosecute the CIA officer who questioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. What will he say tomorrow or what will his Justice Department do if Congressional Democrats continue to demand prosecutions?

Furthermore, what conduct by the CIA will the next administration find to be criminal that is approved by the present administration?

Perhaps the most telling evidence presented in the article is this:

Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
CIA case officers who are choosing to carry personal liability insurance because
they do not trust the agency and the U.S. government to look out for their best
interests.

Even before the present Obama administration threat to prosecute CIA actions in the War on Terror, case officers lacked confidence in their own government to defend them.

Why will intelligent people risk their lives and careers in defending this country when a change in administration may mean their prosecution and imprisonment?

Apparently KSM was waterboarded 5 times rather than 183 times as previously reported.

Fox News reports that a lot of breathless reporting about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times are simply incorrect. Fox says that

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that
the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto
Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the
simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

Anyone who sees the 183 sessions as constituting torture needs to rethink their position.

Democrats' convenient memory and moral grandstanding.

It's amazing how convenient "The Politics of Liberal Amnesia" is. Democratic leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, were informed of the enhanced interrogation techniques and did not object to their use. Congress continued to fund the CIA in its conduct of interrogations. What did the Democrats think was the purpose of such information except to get their approval for such operations?

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal article quotes Senator Bob Graham during a hearing in 2002:

"Unfortunately, we are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to
an operation just to play it safe," said Democrat Bob Graham, chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the 2002 confirmation hearing of
Scott Muller to be the CIA's general counsel. "We need excellent, aggressive
lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice, not lawyers who say no to an
otherwise legal opinion just because it is easier to put on the brakes."

Of course, that was then, this is now. Now that we seem safely beyond the dangers of new al Qaeda attacks, Democrats now want to prosecute the lawyers for being "excellent, aggressive lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice" rather than simply saying "no to an otherwise legal opinion just because it is easier to put on the brakes." Funny, those Democrats.

Rather than seeing them as "excellent, aggressive lawyers," Democrats now characterize them as careerists willing to approve anything suggested by the President and Vice President in order to win future appointments to the bench or other career advancement.

Democrats now want to claim that the enhanced interrogation methods were not necessary to gain information from Khalid Sheik Mohammad and that any information obtained did not prevent attacks. The article provides these statements from CIA Director George Tenet:

"I believe none of these successes [in foiling terrorist plots] would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted his client simply shut up. In his initial interrogation by CIA officers, KSM was defiant. 'I'll talk to you guys,' he said, 'after I get to New York and see my lawyer.' Apparently he thought he would be immediately shipped to the United States and indicted in the Southern District of New York. Had that happened, I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats to the American people."

Mr. Tenet continues: "From our interrogation of KSM and other senior al Qaeda members . . . we learned many things -- not just tactical information leading to the next capture. For example, more than 20 plots had been put in motion by al Qaeda against U.S. infrastructure targets, including communications nodes, nuclear power plants, dams, bridges and tunnels."

The Democrats would now punish Bush and others for taking action other than treating KSM and others as though they were white-collar criminals arrested in an ordinary criminal investigation. Tenet's considered opinion is that the CIA would have obtained no information from him and that the planned subsequent terrorist operations would have occurred with an unknown number of casualties and damage to infrastructure.

From the safety and comfort of 2009 one may easily take the morally superior position that Bush and the CIA "tortured" KSM. Undoubtedly, he experienced discomfort and tremendous fright in some of the enhanced interrogations. Does that equate to torture under the law and in view of the extraordinary protections of medical oversight in all of the interrogations?

Furthermore, as to the lawyers who wrote the legal opinions, was the law so clear that they had to know that their opinions were clearly fallacious and that no reasonable lawyer would approve the proposed enhanced interrogation techniques as not constituting torture? In my view, one can reasonably argue that their opinions are mistaken. I do not think one can read the opinions and conclude that they knew their opinions to be erroneous and that they knowingly approved conduct that they knew to constitute torture.

Air Force One buzzes New York.

The New York Times reports that "Jet Flyover Frightens New Yorkers." Of course it did. How could anyone imagine otherwise?

A Boeing 747 and 2 fighter jets flying outside of normal flight paths would bring 9/11 immediately to mind for anyone in New York who saw it. Who could be so stupid as to think it would not?

All that said. As stupid as anyone is to have thought that New Yorkers would react otherwise, one must ask one other question.

What possible reason would lead anyone to send Air Force One to fly around New York? What in the world was the White House thinking to approve such conduct? Was anyone even thinking? Is President Obama so self absorbed that he can't see how incredibly stupid the idea was? Is no one able to say to him, "Don't be stupid"?

I'm sorry, but I see no possible justification for doing what the White House clearly ordered.

It's time to end the farce of the United Nations that generated Durban II.

Many international lawyers, professors, politicians and others continue to emphasize the importance and validity of international law in ordering relations among the nations of the world. Recent events clearly show the bankruptcy of international law and the lack of legitimacy of the United Nations and other international institutions.

The international community cannot deal with the outbreak of piracy near Somalia. The British navy and others refuse to capture pirates for fear that international law will require them to provide sanctuary and a life sinecure to the pirates.

The United States now plans to try the one pirate it captured. Undoubtedly, that will prove to all the extreme expense and difficulty in such prosecutions. A constitutional system designed for ordinary criminal prosecution of domestic crime does not fit well with piracy conducted half a world away.

The United Nations just sponsored a farce in Geneva where the clown prince of Iran spewed forth racist nonsense in a forum supposedly called to oppose racism. Of course, this flows easily from the UN's effort to outlaw free speech that "insults" religion sponsored by Islamic countries. Any objective view of reality would show that the parties most insulting other religions are Muslims and that the Qur'an itself constitutes the greatest source of insults of other religions.

Experts on international law continually call for prosecutions of Israelis and Americans for violations of international law and human rights while remaining silent as to conduct of Hamas, Hezbullah, al Qaeda and others.

Hamas launched thousands of rockets into southern Israel for several years; any of them could have easily landed in a kindergarten and killed dozens of innocent children. Silence greeted the conduct from the world community. When Israel finally acted to protect its people, the international law community suddenly found its voice.

We hear continual demands to prosecute George Bush and others in his administration for interrogating prisoners who had murdered thousands of Americans and planned to murder many thousands more. We now know that the interrogation techniques worked. The administration obtained information that it used to arrest al Qaeda operatives before they launched attacks on Los Angeles.

Far from indicating extensive torture as many would argue, the recently released legal opinions show an administration that limited enhanced interrogation to a few prisoners and attempted to protect those prisoners from abuse. Torturers simply do not concern themselves with the many issues agonized over in the memos.

The time has come to make radical changes in international legal structure. The United Nations and the traditional institutions of international law no longer have credibility. The United States and its allies have to rethink the entire system. That should begin with ending the playhouse on the Hudson before it generates a Durban III.

So where is the outrage from those always so outraged at imagined Israeli violations of international law?

'Haniyeh hid in hospital during Gaza op' according to the Jerusalem Post. Where are the so fastidious practitioners of international law who endlessly lecture the USA and Israel about their supposed violation of international law?

It appears that "Haniyeh, as well as other senior Hamas commanders, took over a ward of the hospital and set up a command center for the duration of the operation." That clearly violates international rules of war by using hospital facilities as a shield for military activities. Of course, that should surprise no one. Hamas used schools and mosques as ammo dumps and launch sites for their rockets.

In addition, field commanders took "advantage of the humanitarian corridor and cessation of action that the IDF instituted every day for several hours to enter the hospital and meet with senior Hamas officials to receive instructions." IDF stopped military operations to allow for humanitarian efforts and Hamas took advantage of it to coordinate efforts to kill Israelis.

There will be silence from the international law advocates. They're too busy preening and strutting their moral superiority at American "torture" of Al Qaeda terrorists and Israelis' efforts to defend themselves from Gazan terror attacks.

States with high unemployment have high income taxes and high unionization.

Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy concludes that "High Unemployment States Have High Income Taxes or High Unionization or Both." So what is the solution that Obama offers for this country's economic problems? He gives the orthodox Democratic response to all policy questions - higher income taxes and higher unionization.

Of course, a fundamental part of the Democratic faith is that increased taxes do not affect behavior. Obama and Democrats believe that people will continue to work hard, invest their money and take entrepreneurial risk regardless of how high marginal tax rates are. Reality, experience and facts can not be allowed to interfere with that faith.

Please, Mr. Lindgren, don't expect mere facts to overcome the faith commitment of Obama and the Democrats. They plan to follow their faith regardless of the consequences to the country.

In case anyone doubts, the CIA confirms that waterboarding saved American lives.

This report seems to answer any question as to the efficacy of waterboarding. CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles.

In referring to Khalid Sheik Mohammed as KSM, the report says, "After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."

If the attack had occurred, thousands of Americans may have been killed.

The American people have a right to know the facts in order to judge decisions of both the Bush and Obama administrations.

More transparency on the part of the Obama administration?

We now learn that the techniques recently banned by the Obama administration "yielded 'high value information'" according to a memo written by the present national security director, Dennis C. Blair. Of course, a condensed version of the memo deleted that conclusion when it was released to the press by the administration. Is this some of the transparency Obama promised during the campaign?

Blair wrote, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.”

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

Both of these statements were deleted from the version released to the press. According to the Times report, "A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."

Where "normal editing process of shortening an internal memo" means "deleting anything that would embarrass Obama" then the statement is correct. However, the American people need to know whether the enhanced interrogation techniques provided useful information or not.

The importance of that question can be seen in this from the Times' report:

Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have
quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu
Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce
information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued
that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a
planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week
to bolster that conclusion.

Mr. Obama’s team has cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations, but in a visit to the C.I.A. this week, the president did not directly question that. Instead, he said, that any sacrifice from banning those tactics was worth it to uphold the nation’s belief in rule of law.

Even as the Obama team publicly "cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations," Blair was acknowledging their effectiveness in an internal communication within the CIA. No wonder Blair's comments were deleted.

The American people may reasonably accept Obama's decision if the tactics are ineffective, but question his judgment if they provide information that saves thousands of American lives. They have a right to that information.

Steve Forbes: Bag the Stimulus, Cut Taxes.

Steve Forbes speaks truth to power, “We should know by now that stimulus packages don’t work,” he tells CNBC. “It didn’t work in 2001. It doesn’t change tax rates, so it doesn’t change incentives.”

He recommends that we reduce the payroll tax and capital gains tax. “Those things work. We know that from experience. Simply spending more money, that’s one shot and then you’re back to where you were before.”

Of course, the Obama administration seems more interested in using the recession as an excuse to implement Democratic plans rather than finding the best way to speed recovery.