Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Dissent Is Criminal   [Hans A. von Spakovsky]

Bob Bauer, the husband of Anita “My Favorite Political Philosopher Is Mao” Dunn, has been appointed as the new White House counsel. I know Bob, and on an everyday level he is a polite gentleman with a great family history. But he is not someone you want to face on the other side of a court case or a political battle because he is a fierce partisan who does not believe in taking prisoners. No one should forget that it was Bauer, as the general counsel for the Obama presidential campaign, who wrote a letter to the Justice Department on October 17, 2008, asking that a special prosecutor investigate Republicans like John McCain for talking publicly about voter fraud. According to Bauer, such talk was not only evidence of a “partisan political agenda,” but supposedly intended to “suppress voting” by harassing voters and impeding “their exercise of their rights.”

 

The spurious claims made in the letter were pretty outrageous at the time, but what is even scarier is that we now have a White House counsel who has asserted that anyone who talks about voter fraud, including the type of massive voter-registration fraud committed by ACORN, should be investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department for voter intimidation. Under normal circumstances, one could be pretty confident that the attorney general would dismiss such ridiculous claims. But given the serious concerns about the politicalization of the Justice Department under Eric Holder, perhaps we should all be worried that the prosecutorial power of the Justice Department will be used against members of the opposition political party on this issue. Since I write about voter fraud fairly often, I guess I should be on the lookout for that grand-jury indictment or a call from the FBI.

11/18 03:52 PMShare

Singed by Irony – or a Tribute?   [Mike Potemra]

William Tyndale was one of the great heroes of history, burned at the stake in 1535 for translating the Scriptures into the vernacular. I was just checking, through Google, what percentage of the King James Bible was taken from his earlier translation. (Answers vary, but the consensus is that it was more than 75 percent.) One of the first links that came up was to a company called Tyndale USA: “the most trusted provider of flame resistant apparel.”

11/18 03:45 PMShare

Past the Bitter End   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Conservatives and Republicans should commit themselves not only to defeating Democratic health-care legislation, but to repealing it if it is enacted.

They ought to announce that they will work for repeal for two reasons. The first is straightforward: Making the announcement will increase the probability that the legislation, if enacted, will be repealed. Otherwise inertia might carry it forward even if the public is dissatisfied with its operation in its early years. Conservatives might win some elections and then find themselves divided, with some merely seeking reform of Obamacare. Momentum might dissipate. Most programs, once enacted, never go away, no matter how badly they work. Conservatives should make a strong commitment not to let that happen this time.

The second reason for pledging to repeal the health-care legislation if it’s enacted is that making the pledge will reduce the likelihood that it is enacted to begin with. It would tell vulnerable congressional Democrats who just want this politically damaging debate over that enacting it will not end the political pain—that this debate is not going to fade away by the next election, or maybe even the one after that. Some Democrats may be willing to lose congressional seats in order to enact a longstanding liberal policy goal. A pledge to repeal the health-care legislation would tell even these Democrats that they could end up losing seats for nothing—for nothing lasting, anyway.

Repealing Obamacare should be the Right’s fallback strategy, and making it known that it will be might make it slightly less necessary to fall back to.

11/18 03:33 PMShare

From a $250 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

My go-to website every day . . . even though I don't consider myself a conservative, I find the perspectives  at NRO invaluable . . keep up the good work.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 03:30 PMShare

When Reality Catches up to Rhetoric   [Victor Davis Hanson]

The growing problem for the Obama administration is that the public has finally caught on that the president's tough rhetoric and soaring oratory don't match reality.

"Considering all options" and "wanting more information" essentially mean dithering and voting present on Afghanistan, even after announcing the adoption of a new bold strategy.

"Saving jobs" means conjecturing about the effects of massive borrowing and enhancing your figures through the creation of fictitious congressional districts and bogus employment reporting.

"Punishing KSM" means giving the liberal community a world platform for legal gymnastics designed to repudiate the past administration and demonstrate that community's "tolerance" — without much worry about justice for KSM or the adverse effects of giving such a monster a public megaphone.

The health-care mess grows worse: The Chinese have caught on that Obama wants to borrow more billions for us, who are cash poor, to create entitlements that they, who are cash rich, would not create for their own people. The new government suggestion that women not begin receiving routine mammograms until age 50 comes at a bad time, given that critics of Obamacare have been arguing that it will lead to rationing of service.

Guantanamo is about to go the way of tribunals, renditions, intercepts, Predators, and wiretaps — damned in rhetoric, but kept intact in reality.

"Transparency" did not quite happen either: The Obama administration has offered more photo-ops and fewer press conferences (cf. Anita Dunn on that tact), and Washington has as many lobbyists as ever. Meanwhile, the administration has not fulfilled its promise to post pending legislation on the Internet; it has politicized the NEA; and it has declared war on Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, and the town-hall protesters. The president has even employed the sexual slur "tea-bagger" against his opposition.

Obama's "reset button" foreign policy in just ten months has made the Middle East worse and has delighted European leftists as much as it has terrified Europe's centrist leaders. In Latin America, the U.S. has gone from being an advocate of consensual government, human rights, and market capitalism to being an appeaser of Chávez, Zelaya, Ortega, the Castros, et al., inasmuch as these communist hardliners are now seen as problematic advocates for indigenous peoples and economic justice.

We are left with two conclusions. 1) A very inexperienced president has discovered that all the easy, Manichean campaign rhetoric of 2008 does not translate well into actual governance. 2) Obama is in a race to push a rather radical, polarizing agenda down the throat of a center-right country before the country wakes up and his approval ratings hit 40 percent.

We may see one of two things happen: Either the country will move more to the left in four years than it has in the last 50; or Obama will take down with him both the Democratic Congress and the very notion of responsible liberal governance, thereby achieving a Jimmy Carter–type legacy.

The next year will be one of the most interesting in memory.

11/18 03:12 PMShare

From a $25 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

It's a relief to click on NRO every day and see there are like-minded people who have their finger on the pulse. It affirms that we are not howling at the moon in a vacuum. Keep up the great work, and your persistence is appreciated.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 03:00 PMShare

Wireless in Seattle   [Jay Nordlinger]

The NR “suits” like us to announce when we’re going to be on the radio and whatnot. Okay, here’s something: The David Boze Show in Seattle, KTTH, 3:10 Pacific time. I know there are conservatives in Seattle. We NR-niks met them in a room one time, before an Alaska cruise. I think there are some closeted ones there too (as everywhere). No worry: You can listen to the radio in private. Maybe in your car, with the windows rolled up tight?

11/18 03:00 PMShare

Parsing Palin   [NRO Staff]

Rich Lowry on Going Rogue on Off the Page:

11/18 02:46 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

NRO and the Corner are invaluable resources. You guys help me keep up with the dizzying deconstruction of our country, so I make it a point to stop by every day.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 02:30 PMShare

DeGette: A Correction   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

The Hill misquoted Rep. Diana DeGette yesterday, and I relied on their misquotation in a post. She said that the Catholic bishops should be among the groups that have input into legislation; she did not oppose their having input. Glad to hear it.

11/18 02:24 PMShare

Joan Biskupic’s Biography of Justice Scalia   [Ed Whelan]

On Bench Memos, I have a series of posts (Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4) offering not-very-favorable commentary on USA Today reporter Joan Biskupic’s new biography of Justice Scalia, American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

11/18 02:10 PMShare

Everybody's a Critic   [John Derbyshire]

Really. Who let all these nit-pickers in?

Mr. Derbyshire — You said that: "If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was 'several million degrees,' we'd be a star." We wouldn't, though. Wrong composition, and not big enough …

[Me]  Feugh! At those temperatures Earth would look a darn sight more star-like than planet-like, at least for the few minutes it existed. And I bet our light elements, sparse as they are, would seek each other out and fuse like gangbusters.

(A different reader suggests that if the Earth's interior were at those temperatures, we could drill holes, feed fibre-optic cable down, and light our cities for free!)

And then this wisenheimer:

Mr. Derbyshire — Median length of a Chinese dynasty only 45 years? Surely you jest.

[Me]  Nah-uh. I copied the list of 32 imperial dynasties (starting from the First Emperor — where else should I start?) to a spreadsheet from Appendix A of Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary. I added one more: Median comes out neater with N odd, and the guy thought he'd established a dynasty, whatever Mathews says. Then I sorted by duration and read off number 17, which was the Wei Dynasty (A.D. 220–265). The mean duration of a dynasty, by the way, is 87.4 years.

11/18 02:03 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I read NRO several times a day.  It has become a necessary part of my information gathering. Thanks for your careful, thoughtful commentary.

I am also getting a subscription to your magazine, the first hard-copy magazine subscription I've had in years.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 02:00 PMShare

The AG's Distortion of the Opposition to His Decision   [Andy McCarthy]

Attorney General Holder has several times offered a spirited defense of federal prosecutors — including expressions of confidence that KSM and the other jihadists will be convicted. This is a strawman: There's no reason to defend people who are not being attacked, and conviction is not the issue.

As it happens, Preet Bharara, the new U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, worked for me for a while when he was a new prosecutor. He is superb. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that he and the assistant U.S. attorneys he assigns to the KSM case will do an excellent job and uphold the high standards and traditions of the Southern District and the Justice Department. I'm also very confident that KSM and the others will be convicted. 

For what it's worth, I think the team I led in the Blind Sheikh case did an excellent job, and we also convicted everybody. But that is not the measure of success. It's not whether the government wins the litigation; it's whether the national security of the United States has been harmed more by having the trial than it would have been harmed by handling the detainees in a different manner.

What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did.

If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham this morning, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies. 

Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians.

The question is not whether the prosecutors are able, whether they'll do a spectacular job, and whether they'll get these guys. They are extraordinarily competent, they will perform at a very high level, and I'll be shocked if they don't win the case. The issue is: What damage will we sustain by doing things this way, and is there a way we could do them without sustaining that much damage?

11/18 01:32 PMShare

From a $20 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Well, there's my beer money for the weekend! I'm a recent college grad — hopefully in the future I'll have more to give! Thank you and keep up the great (and good) work you do.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 01:30 PMShare

Re: 'Fuss'   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

A reader in Oregon responds:

Ronald Reagan is a giant hero for civilization but if, under him, the Republican Party became the "party of ideas" it wasn't Reagan's ideas. Reagan didn't have ideas so much as he had principles, truths, and optimism. These things Palin has in spades. Damn right the GOP can be a party of ideas under Palin — under her it will once again be enthused and guided by overarching conservative views of what this country needs — then the ideas will flow like 1980-88 all over again.

Off to donate $25.

11/18 01:28 PMShare

Defining Nidal Hassan   [NRO Staff]

Jay Nordlinger argues that the "Is Hassan a terrorist?" debate doesn't matter on Off the Page today:

11/18 01:25 PMShare

Wehner on the Palin 'Fuss'   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Pete writes:

The degree to which Palin evokes fury, contempt, and anger among her critics is nothing short of amazing. It is visceral and almost clinical. And it cannot be based on what she has done (which as governor of Alaska is fairly limited and not terribly controversial), on the views she holds (which are mainstream conservative), or on her relative lack of experience when McCain picked her as his vice-presidential choice (Palin’s experience was comparable to Barack Obama’s, who after all was running for president). What explains the fierce reaction to her is, in part, I think, her affect, the way she talks (and winks), the background she has emerged from, the populism she seems to embody. Palinism, as I understand it, is less a coherent philosophy or set of ideas and more an attitude and spirit. In that sense, she is a cultural figure much more than a political one.

If you believe, as I do, that the GOP once again needs to become the “party of ideas” — as it did under Ronald Reagan — then Palin is not the solution to what ails it. At this stage, based on the interviews I have seen with her, she doesn’t seem able to articulate the case for conservatism in a manner that is compelling or even particularly persuasive. She is nothing like, to take three individuals I would hold up as public models, Margaret Thatcher, William Bennett, and Antonin Scalia — people brimming with ideas, knowledgeable and formidable, intellectually well-grounded, and impossible to dismiss. That, of course, doesn’t mean that Palin doesn’t have a role to play in the Republican party or contributions to make to it. And what Palin has revealed about some of her critics is, in the words of my colleague Yuval Levin, “the unfortunate and unattractive propensity of the American cultural elite to treat those who are not deemed part of the elect with condescension and contumely.”

11/18 01:11 PMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Okay, okay. I’m filled with guilt. I have been squatting, rent free, on NRO for years. I’ve even brought in my children. We would be homeless and adrift without the philosophical shelter of National Review. So, in the spirit of settling a long due debt, please accept this small donation as partial payment for past and future sanctuary.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 01:00 PMShare

Krauthammer's Take   [NRO Staff]

From last night's Fox News All-Stars.

 

On the administration’s phony numbers for jobs saved by the stimulus:

The effect, ultimately — and the danger for any administration — is to be an object of ridicule.

 

Look, this whole discussion has had an Alice-in-Wonderland quality from the very beginning. You can't measure saved jobs. Arguing over the precision or imprecision of the numbers, which are fictional at the beginning, is like arguing that there are twelve angels on the head of a pin and only ten …

 

And when you hear these reports, as we're hearing now with the fictional congressional districts, the risk for the administration is that it becomes an object of ridicule. And once that happens, it's hard to actually stop.

 

And the issue will become competence. There have been ideological objections against this administration — it's left-wing, it's radical, and all that. But now we're starting a new kind of meme, that it is an administration that really can't get things done.

 

And when you have the president announcing, as he did in his address to the Congress — Don't worry about the tracking of the stimulus. It will be done by the vice president and nobody messes with Joe Biden …Well, it looks as if the folks in the 99th district of the Mariana Islands … are messing with Joe Biden.

 

Once the meme starts, it becomes the subject of late-night comedy. … When they speak seriously about this – 640,329 jobs saved, comical precision — and then it turns out a lot of these are fictional jobs in fictional districts, what happens is the administration, already satirized on "Saturday Night Live" as do-nothing, is now going to be seen as an administration that cannot even do nothing competently.

On China’s concern with the state of the U.S. economy:

Look, the reason you have this odd alliance between Republicans and Chinese on [cautioning against] health-care reform is that the Chinese hold all this debt. They know that eventually the United States will take care of it in one way. It's not going to be default. We are not Argentina. It is not going to be a repudiation of debt the way that Cuba did. It is going to be in inflation. We will inflate our way out. …

 

Now, the existing amount of [Chinese-held] debt, over $1 trillion or so, is large, but it's not out of control. It is about a tenth of our GNP. What the Chinese are worried about is that [with its] ambitious social agenda this administration is going to add hugely onto our debt, starting with a new entitlement in health-care reform which could add trillions to national debt.

 

In the absence of health reform, [we] are going to have $9 trillion added in debt over a decade. … That's why the Chinese are worried, and that's why Republicans are worried, and that's why Americans are worried about this incredible spending that the Obama administration has on its agenda.

11/18 12:36 PMShare

Health Care Is Not a Right   [Iain Murray]

I had a health scare a couple of weeks ago and as I was lying in the ER, enjoying excellent privately-run health care, I had a chance to think philosophically about the nature of health care. Thanks to my young colleague Roger Abbott, we were able to coalesce those thoughts into an op/ed over at the Examiner.

I'm doing much better now; thanks for asking!

11/18 12:36 PMShare

How Much Did That New Car Cost?   [Iain Murray]

The National Taxpayers Union has a new study out assessing the cost of the auto bailouts. The numbers should shock you. Not only has the subsidy to GM (and its banking division, GMAC) and Chrysler amounted to $800 per taxpaying household — money that could easily make the difference between a real Christmas and an "imagination Christmas" this year — but the subsidies per car sold are remarkable. They amount to over $12,000 per GM car and over $7,500 per Chrysler car sold. We have indeed created American Leyland.

11/18 12:34 PMShare

From a $50 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

NRO is one stop shopping for me: Informative discourse, links to must-read articles of the day, plus the added entertainment of all things sci-fi related. If there is another website this thorough, they need a new marketing team.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 12:30 PMShare

Re: Durbin on Moussaoui   [Andy McCarthy]

A reader notes some facts I should have mentioned:  Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota at a time when the military commission system did not yet exist. Unlike KSM & Co., he wasn't captured in wartime outside the United States and detained outside the United States at a time when a military commission system had been implemented.

11/18 12:28 PMShare

From a $50 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a UK perspective, NRO is an online oasis in a socialist desert. Keep up the great work!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 12:00 PMShare

Durbin on Moussaoui   [Andy McCarthy]

AG Holder's testimony has resumed, and Senator Durbin claims that no one complained about the Moussaoui trial being in a civilian court. In fact, many of us complained — I pointed out several times that Moussaoui was the "poster child" for commissions.

More importantly, though, Senator Durbin and the attorney general fail to point out that the Moussaoui trial was a three-ring circus, that the district judge actually tried to dismiss the indictment, and that we don't know what would have happened had Moussaoui not surprised everyone by pleading guilty. When the Court of Appeals reinstated the Moussaoui indictment, it also said it was sensitive to the trial judge's concerns and would look very carefully to ensure that the government made available to Moussaoui all the information he needed to present his defense. What would have happened if Moussaoui had continued to press his demand for access to classified information and testimony from al-Qaeda captives like KSM? We don't know.

If Moussaoui is their shining example of how well the civilian courts handle international terrorism cases during wartime, they're in trouble. 

11/18 11:55 AMShare

Your Tax Dollars at Work   [Veronique de Rugy]

According to the Office of Managment and Budget, in FY 2009 improper payments rose to $98 billion from $72 billion in FY 2008. Of this $98 billion, $54.2 billion was in improper Medicare and Medicaid Spending (improper payments include fraud and payments that aren't fully accounted for).

Over at the NPR blog, Julie Rovner writes:

The Medicare Advantage error rate also jumped — without any change in measurement methodology — from 10.6 percent to 15.4 percent.

Said Orszag, without a hint of irony, given the pitched battles in Congress over Democrats' efforts to cut tens of billions of dollars from the Medicare Advantage program, "this is one of the reasons why, as part of health reform, we believe that there are crucial changes necessary to the Medicare Advantage program.

Here is a chart of improper payments.

11/18 11:51 AMShare

Holder's Testimony    [Andy McCarthy]

They are in recess after opening statements and initial rounds of questions. Here are some of the Attorney General's whoppers so far:

1.  The "tragic shooting" at Ft. Hood.  What happened at Ft. Hood was a jihadist massacre — a terrorist act, not a tragedy.

2.  The civilian justice system has been handling terrorism cases successfully for years.  No mention of Mamdouh Salim, the al-Qaeda founder who was never brought to trial for 1998 U.S. embassy bombings because he maimed a Bureau of Prisons guard in an escape attempt during which he attempted to kidnap is taxpayer-funded defense lawyers.

 

3.  We can protect classified material because of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA).  It is not just classified information that is helpful to terrorist organizations. The list of people who might be identified as unindicted coconspirators that I had to turn over in 1995 was not classified, but it told al-Qaeda who was on the government's investigative radar screen. Moreover, CIPA does not shield all classified information from the terrorists — just the classified information the judge decides is neither discoverable under the rules nor relevant to the trial. If it is discoverable and/or relevant, the defense gets it. And in civilian court, the terrorists can demand to represent themselves (as I explained in this column), so the government can't shield the classified information from them as it can in the military system (where it can require them to have military lawyers with security clearances in order to get access to the discovery).

 

In answering Senator Hatch's questions, Holder emphasized that the coconspirator list in my case was not a classified document (as I explain above). That, however, doesn't help the attorney general's argument. To the contrary, it demonstrates that there is a great deal of non-classified information that comes out in a civilian trial, and that gets made available in civilian discovery, that is not classified. This information is still incredibly helpful to the people trying to kill us.

 

Moreover, the Left always complains that too much information in government is classified. Implicitly, Holder is now suggesting that we classify far more information than we otherwise would to bring it under the protection of CIPA. In addition, CIPA requires that all classified information issues be litigated (including any appeals) prior to trial. If we classify everything, that's going to require a mammoth pretrial trial and appeal before the actual trial happens. And, even if you did that, CIPA cannot control what goes on in the courtroom once witnesses start answering questions and blurting out information — and once defense lawyers start asking questions about classified information in order to provoke the prosecutors into objecting (defense lawyers often don't care about the answers to these questions; they ask for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to object and make the government look like it is hiding important information from the jury).

 

4.  Classified information procedures in the Military Commissions Act, which would apply at military commissions, are "based on" the CIPA that applies in civilian trials.  They may be "based on" the CIPA rules, but they are not the same as the CIPA rules. The MCA provisions (Sec. 949(j)(c)) expressly provide for (1) deletions of classified material from discovery documents made available to the accused; (2) the withholding of methods and sources of intelligence collection from the accused; and (3) the deletion of classified information from exculpatory evidence. It is true that, whether you're in civilian or military court, the executive branch gets the opportunity to propose a substitution (e.g., an unclassified summary of the information) rather than surrender the classified information. But in civilian court under CIPA, the presumption is that if classified information is relevant under the rules of evidence, the accused gets access to it. In military court under the MCA, the presumption is that classified information gets withheld, especially if it involves methods and sources of intelligence.

 

5.  A civilian trial is no more a platform for KSM than a military commission would have been. That's ridiculous. KSM was ready to plead guilty and be executed eleven months ago. Whatever soapbox he was going to have, he'd largely already had, and while we'd have had to let him speak before sentence was imposed, that would have been the end of it. Now, he's going to get a full-blown trial — after combing through the discovery for a couple of years and after putting the Bush administration under the spotlight.

 

Holder derided Senator Kyl for pointing this out, saying Kyl had no way of knowing what KSM's position is today. That's a specious point. We do know what his position was eleven months ago when the Obama administration could have accepted his plea and pushed for his execution. Moreover, why would that still be KSM's position today, when he now knows Holder is ready to give him the stage in New York that he's been seeking since the day he was captured?

 

6. In a civilian trial, America will see KSM for the coward that he is — Holder: "I am not scared of KSM." Submitting a war criminal to a military commission is not an exercise in fear; it is an exercise in justice. We already know all about what kind of animal KSM is, thanks to the exrtraordinary information that has come out in the military proceedings and the CIA interrogations. You could fill a book a book with it, which the 9/11 Commission did. We don't need to bear the risks of a civilian trial either to learn more about KSM or so Mr. Holder can show how brave he is.

 

7. Holder expects to detain the terrorists in federal prisons under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) to ensure that they do not pose a risk to Americans.  In addition to not mentioning Salim (see no. 2, above), the attorney general skipped over the inconvenient fact that his Justice Department just caved in on the SAMs in the case of terrorist Richard Reid.

8. For eight years justice has been delayed — no longer, "It is past time to finally act." Holder, of course, does not mention the role of his firm and others in delaying and derailing the military commissions during their representation of America's enemies. Senator Kyl just confronted him with my contentions on that score (from this column). The attorney-general responded that I am a polemecist who says inflammatory things for talk shows, whereas he is concerned with facts. (I guess he means pertinent facts, like how he is not "scared of KSM.") I'm delighted to let people judge that one for themselves.

11/18 11:34 AMShare

More Evidence   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

that Hasan wasn't driven mad by an overflow of compassion for his patients.

11/18 11:33 AMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I'm addicted to NRO and especially The Corner, Campaign Spot and now Critical Condition.  Friday afternoons are always painful when the pace of new posts slows (as you all head off to your weekend engagements) and I don't have new and interesting tidbits to read every 10 minutes.

NR and NRO were a favorite during the Bush years (a far more amenable time for conservatives despite the spending spree) and have been utterly indispensable this past year as we entered the "Age of Obama".

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 11:30 AMShare

When France Is Starting to Look Good . . .    [Veronique de Rugy]

Donald Marron has a very telling chart about what the U.S. primary structural deficit (which, if I understand correctly, is the long-term underlying deficit once you control for the variations due to the recession and focus purely on spending at all levels of government, so something like that) looks like compared to other countries. That deficit is high — the fifth highest, in fact.

As always, Marron's post is worth reading entirely. His conclusion is straightfoward:

If you take these results at face value, they suggest that the United States will have to cut spending and increase revenues by a combined 8.8% of GDP between 2010 and 2020, a fiscal adjustment of around 0.9% per year. Imagine having to enact a permanent spending reduction or tax increase of $120 billion per year next year, and then do it again in each of the next nine years. Rather daunting.

11/18 11:13 AMShare

Leading Indicator?   [Mark Krikorian]

Our friend in Boston, Michael Graham, makes an interesting observation:

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick continues to be a leading indicator for the Obama administration. This week, in the middle of massive budget cuts, a new $1 billion tax hike and unemployment at 25-year highs, the Patrick administration is pushing a huge immigration plan that includes subsidized college tuition and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

The story is, among other places, here. I think there's something to the "leading indicator" idea, but of course Obama faces a very different legislature than Patrick does (and I think even the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would have a tough time passing all that in this environment). And remember the expiration date on all of Obama's promises, like closing Gitmo.

Like I've been saying, Guantanamo is staying open and amnesty isn't happening.

11/18 11:11 AMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

To the best website in America, thank you for your service.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 11:00 AMShare

The Palin Interview   [Jonah Goldberg]

Rich and Robert's interview with Sarah Palin is good. But, unlike Erick Erickson, they failed to elicit a plug for Liberal Fascism.

For shame!

11/18 10:44 AMShare

How the KSM Trial Will Undermine the Law   [Jonah Goldberg]

The ACLU loves that we're bringing these guys to civilian courts. They should be careful what they wish for. From an e-friend and lawyer with very relevant government experience.

Dear Jonah,
 
It is a really bad idea to have a trial where the accused is so vile and dangerous no jury or judge would ever let them off.  The saying “bad cases make bad law” is a cliché for a reason.  The judge in the KSM case will bend over backwards to make sure KSM is convicted.  The appellate courts will do the same. No one wants to be the guy who let him off. The problem with that is that they will make all kinds of screwy and destructive rulings justifying the use of government power that will then be precedence for other criminal cases. Some day when a guy gets convicted on a two bit federal charge thanks to the KSM rules that will no doubt result from this trial, we will have Eric Holder and his liberal and libertarian enablers to thank.  KSM and his case is like a virus that should be isolated from the civilian justice system.

11/18 10:41 AMShare

Everyday Brings a New Bad Idea   [Veronique de Rugy]

And sometimes it even brings several terrible ones. Today is one of these days.

First, the Democrats are once again talking about a second stimulus, except this time they won't call it a stimulus (because the first one gave the word stimulus a bad name)  but a "jobs legislation." I doubt it would make any difference to remind them that government spending can't create jobs; that with government spending comes waste, fraud, and abuse; and that most of the money from the first stimulus still hasn't been spent.

Also, the Democrats want to use $200 billion of unused Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, not to reduce the deficit, but to spend on job creation. Interestingly, because the brilliant lawmakers behing the idea don't read newspapers, and haven't kept up with the broken promises made by the administration in February about how the $789 billion would create 3.5 million jobs, they are claiming that this move would create 6 million jobs.

House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson (D-Conn.) said momentum is building among his party to take unused Troubled Asset Relief Program money and put it toward job creation, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he’s trying to figure out a way to get a jobs bill on the House calendar before the chamber adjourns in mid December. The Larson bill, called the Transparent Markets Act, could create six million jobs, Larson said.

The silver lining: Americans understand that this administration and Congress have no clue what they are talking about. According to a CBS News Poll, "While the White House insists about a million jobs have been created by the stimulus package, Americans simply don't believe it. A mere 7% say the stimulus has already created jobs, 46% say jobs will be created eventually, 42% say it will never create jobs."

11/18 10:36 AMShare

Moral-Equivalence Watch   [Jonah Goldberg]

From Jake Tapper yesterday:

Asked how President Obama pressed the issue of human rights, {Jeffrey Bader, Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council] told ABC News that the US is most "persuasive if we have our own house in order."

President Obama's presidential order to close the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay is an example of how he is working hard "to correct and improve the image of the United States on human rights," Bader said, which makes his appeals to China more impactful than when the "salesman is not persuasive." The president told China how the US has been strengthened by such values, Bader said.

What's more annoying: the moral equivalence between the U.S. and China, or the naïveté driving the assumption the Chinese care one iota about how we treat detainees?

11/18 10:35 AMShare

Jeffrey Toobin Doesn't Know History   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Jeffrey Toobin starts his New Yorker brief against the Stupak amendment with a quick sketch of the history of abortion. "Abortion," he begins, "is almost as old as childbirth. There has always been a need for some women to end their pregnancies." This claim is at best misleading. Joseph Dellapenna's comprehensive history of abortion goes to some trouble to show that before the nineteenth century, abortion was rare because the available methods were ineffective, dangerous, or both.

Toobin continues, "In modern times, the law’s attitude toward that need has varied. In the United States, at the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before 'quickening' were both legal and commonplace, often performed by midwives." This claim is false. The danger and ineffectiveness of available methods of abortion, the high birth rates of the period, and the high proportion of pregnant brides during the era all tell against Toobin's conclusion. James Mohr's Abortion in America, the most authoritative history before Dellapenna's, concluded that abortion was "fundamentally a marginal practice." Other historians have reached the same conclusion.

How could Toobin have gone so far astray? I have a strong hunch. Toobin's argument tracks pretty closely with that of a legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court in 1989. That "historians' brief," submitted in the name of several hundred historians, was very influential. Ronald Dworkin and Laurence Tribe, for example, wrote books on abortion that relied on the brief for their historical sections. But the brief was a fraud: It falsified the sources on which it purported to rely, and it contradicted the published work of many of the signatories. (I wrote a chapter on the fraud in my book about abortion and related issues.)

Judging from Toobin's New Yorker article, that fradulent history is influential still.

11/18 10:32 AMShare

Insulate Your Home With Taxpayer Cash!   [Stephen Spruiell]

If you're trying to get an early read on how the stimulators plan to rob us next, David Leonhardt's column is a good place to look for information. Right from the start, you can tell this isn't going to go well:

The one highly visible success of the stimulus bill has been the cash-for-clunkers program. It induced a boom in vehicle sales this summer that clearly would not have happened otherwise.

Industry analysts at Edmunds concluded that most of the cash-for-clunkers sales were "pull-forward," meaning that the program merely paid people to buy a car in July that they would have bought in September. Only 18 percent of the vehicles sold were "incremental," meaning purchases that wouldn't have happened anyway. Divide the cost of the program by the number of incremental vehicles sold and you arrive at a subsidy cost of $24,000 per vehicle. Cash for clunkers was a terrible program. Leonhardt is off to a bad start.

The rest of the stimulus bill has created a lot of jobs — 700,000 to 1.5 million, according to economists’ estimates. But it has done so in thousands of little ways: scattered construction projects, plugged-up school budgets and the like. Politically, these measures are not popular enough to create a groundswell for more of them.

Whether the stimulus has created any jobs at all is subject to serious debate — I take up this question in the next issue of NRODT — but one thing we know is that it has not created anywhere near the number of jobs its supporters claim it did. Tens of thousands of the jobs the stimulus reportedly saved were never really in danger; other job totals were inflated when government agencies and non-profits counted raises as new jobs. Scattered construction projects? You mean like the $3.4 million eco-passage for turtles in Florida or John Murtha's airport to nowhere? There's a reason these measures are not popular: They are powerful reminders that government has neither the incentives nor the information to guide economic resources to where they are most needed.

Despite the government's abysmal track record in this regard, the alternative — letting individual economic decisions guide resources — is just too horrible for some people to contemplate. Case in point: Millions of homeowners have evaluated the costs and benefits of energy-saving weatherization projects and decided they're not worth it. Horror! What's needed, Leonhardt says, is a "cash for caulkers" program.

This idea is not new. The stimulus bill gave the Department of Energy $5 billion to fund weatherization efforts in low-income communities. For starters, these programs are especially prone to waste and fraud: 

The money is first allocated to state governments, which are then directed to give funding priority to “community action agencies.” (Hello, ACORN!) Prior to the stimulus windfall, the program had a tiny budget; its auditors nevertheless found tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of waste in one state (Pennsylvania) alone.

They also fail the test of timeliness: Unions have tied up the spending with lawsuits:

In another state (Nevada), the massive influx of stimulus funds met with delays and confusion after organized labor claimed it wasn’t getting a big enough share. After the stimulus passed, Nevada Democrats passed a law requiring half the new workers to have gone though union apprenticeships, adding to the cost of the program and slowing its pace. On top of that, the AFL-CIO sued the state housing division, arguing that all the new jobs should pay union wages and benefits. States and unions are involved in similar disputes in other states, leading even green advocates to question how much bang for the buck the program is providing.

Leonhardt stresses the need to make sure that we design cash for caulkers so that it doesn't have all that waste and fraud normally associated with government programs. "The details . . . will matter enormously," he writes. Leonhardt's admonition will also serve as a handy excuse when the program becomes as big a bust as the rest of the stimulus. It's not that the government is ill-equipped to spend money wisely or efficiently, you see. It's just that it keeps screwing up the darn details!

11/18 10:31 AMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Since I'm a pig-in-a-public-trough government contractor feeding off the Obama's stimulus plan, I think I can spare a few crumbs for your subversive organization. Noblesse Oblige.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 10:30 AMShare

Re: More Obamateur Hour   [Jonah Goldberg]

I'm with Andy. Every day it appears more and more that the White House wants it both ways. They want to claim that this is a fair trial but also an act of venegeance. The terrorists will be treated as if they might be innocent — key to a fair trial — but at the end of the day they'll get their comeuppance. If KSM & Co. get off on a technicality, don't worry, they'll still be locked up, but when they're convicted the White House will claim it was always a fair process. They'll get a fair trial from an impartial jury in New York, but it's "fitting" and "poetic justice" that the jury will be drawn from the community that was viciously attacked on 9/11. Fair but vengeul, honest but foreordained, instructive to the world but really just about the law: The rhetoric from the White House and the Democrats isn't persuasive to those who listen closely and certainly won't be persuasive to foreigners Obama is determined to impress.

The point of all of this is to show that the rule of law is intact, but what the White House is doing is in fact undermining the legitimacy of the legal system by having it do something it shouldn't. Obama, Pat Leahy, and the rest preen as if they are morally superior for preferring civilian courts, but what they are doing is undermining civilian courts, and it gets worse every time they open their mouths.

For those interested, my column on the subject is up on NRO.

11/18 10:27 AMShare

More Obamateur Hour   [Andy McCarthy]

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention. I'm sure it wasn't — he's trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision — but that won't matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.

11/18 10:03 AMShare

From a $25 NRO Contributor   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I'll double it to $50 if health care bills fail!!!

Couldn't argue coherently with my lifelong Dem parents without my NRO ammo.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 10:00 AMShare

What's Wrong with This Headline?   [Mark Krikorian]

Today's Washington Times reports that "Afghanistan more corrupt despite U.S. aid."

"Despite"?

This is like those headlines "Crime Down Despite Increase in Jail Population."

11/18 09:55 AMShare

George W. Hoover   [Mark Krikorian]

Good advice for Bush from Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Bush's belated support for free markets follows in Hoover's footsteps. After leaving office in 1933, Hoover wrote books and articles defending free markets and criticizing the Democrats' New Deal. Some of his criticisms of FDR were well-taken. Many New Deal policies actually worsened and prolonged the Great Depression by organizing cartels and increasing unemployment. But by coming out as a free market advocate, the post-presidential Hoover actually bolstered the cause of interventionism because he helped cement the incorrect impression that he had pursued free market policies while in office, thereby causing the Depression. Bush's post-presidential conversion creates a similar risk: it could solidify the already widespread impression that he, like the Hoover of myth, pursued laissez-faire policies which then caused an economic crisis.

What should Bush now do if he genuinely wants to help the free market cause? The best thing would be to take up economist David Henderson's half-joking suggestion that he "express his regret at nationalizing airport safety, carrying out illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, raiding medical marijuana clinics, bailing out General Motors, AIG and other companies, and socializing prescription drugs for the elderly [the biggest new government program from the 1960s until the present financial crisis]." Bush could also point out that he advocated an ideology of "compassionate conservatism" that included vastly expanded government, and an "ownership society" that (in his own words) involved "us[ing] the mighty muscle of the federal government" to incentivize dubious mortgages of the kind that helped cause the financial collapse of 2008. The greatest contribution Bush can now make to free market policies is to dispel the impression that he pursued them while in office.

It is probably unrealistic to expect any politician to admit major mistakes or point out that he is now advocating policies vastly different from those he pursued while in office. So the second-best way for post-presidential Bush to support free markets is to say as little about the subject as possible. The more the cause is associated with him, the worse off it will be.

11/18 09:53 AMShare

Pres. Robert Byrd?   [Mark Krikorian]

Lots of response to my question of whether West Virginia's 91-year-old old senator, who's third in line for the presidency, would be able to turn down the job if, God forbid, such a situation arose. In a word, yes:

I do not believe that the VP can "turn down" being president if it comes to that.  After all, he ran for the job of VP knowing full well that the most significant aspect of that position (constitutionally speaking) is to be the "president in waiting".  My guess is that a Cabinet secretary would be in a similar position as nothing in the statute provides for a person to refuse to act as President (although, nothing would stop the VP or Cabinet official from taking the oath, becoming President and immediately resigning the office - thereby passing it to the next guy).

The situation with the Speaker and President Pro Tem is slightly different though, since the Constitution prohibits a sitting member of congress from serving in the Executive Branch - thus either of those officials would have to resign their congressional position before they could become President (even acting president) - a requirement also written into the statute (the Speaker or Pres. Pro Tem only act as President "upon his resignation as" Speaker/Pres PT and Representative/Senator).  So, those officials would seem to be able to "turn down" the presidency by refusing to resign their congressional offices.  So long as they refuse they would be ineligible to act as President and the statute would require that you move to the next person on the list.

In fact, as another reader points out, Sec. 19(d)(1) of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 seems to provide for this:

If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State. . . .

I'd guess that "inability, or failure to qualify" covers a lot of things, including being 91 and sickly. So we can rest easy.

11/18 09:49 AMShare

From a $100 NRO Contributor    [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

About time we made a donation. My husband and I discuss Corner goings-on almost every night.

I purchased a sweatshirt as well. In a couple of months we'll be moving from TX to NY — gearing up for battle!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 09:30 AMShare

Thank You!   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

This is the third morning of our Fall 2009 Fundraising Drive and we are so grateful to those of you who have generously contributed. People out of jobs, right out of school, retired — all walks of life are making investments in our future. Thank you. I won't linger with the thanks, though, because we have much work to do. We owe you our best, as always, as from the beginning.

And if you can, click here for all the details.

11/18 09:13 AMShare

From a $50 NRO Contributor    [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I make my donation with a sense of gratitude, because NR has been an indispensable companion on my journey from an intellectually incoherent socialist to a rock-ribbed conservative. If our blessed nation is to continue as a free republic of sovereign citizenry, we have to win over our countrymen intellectually by continuing to demonstrate the superiority of free markets and individual liberty, and the necessity of a limited government, all the while they are tempted to surrender their freedoms to an almighty State for a warm, fuzzy serfdom. In this intellectual battle, I can think of no stronger fortress and no better-stocked munitions house than NR.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/18 09:00 AMShare

Generations    [Gordon S. Chang]

“There will still be setbacks and even conflicts between China and the United States," said People's Daily, the flagship publication of the Chinese Communist Party in the last few days.  "It will take the constant efforts of one or two generations, perhaps several, to bring stable progress to relations."

We should thank Beijing’s ruling group for pointing out the fundamental flaw of American foreign policy toward China.  Even if our policies are working — they’re not, but that’s another story — Washington is employing tactics that will take decades to bear fruit.  So far, we have been appealing to the good instincts of autocrats who interpret gestures of friendship as signs of weakness and who respect nothing but strength.  Perhaps we can entice them to be cooperative, but they have just told us that this approach will require a lifetime of unilateral concessions and obsequious behavior on our part.

So we should not be surprised that President Obama has come away from his three-day trip to Beijing and Shanghai empty-handed.  What should he do next time?  Next time, he should skip China altogether.  He can use the time he saves and head to New Delhi. 

India looms large in the Chinese imagination.  The development Beijing fears most is a tie-up between the world’s most populous democracy and its most powerful one.  If China’s Hu Jintao saw Mr. Obama drawing closer to India, the Chinese leader would do almost anything to woo us, including helping on the great issues of the day. 

So if Obama wants to improve ties with the Chinese, he should stop telling them how important they are and begin ignoring them instead.

  — Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World. He lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.

11/18 09:00 AMShare