Some Thoughts on Hillary and That Ben Ghazi Guy

I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton and she scored no points with me today. For a win today, all she needed to do today was not disrespect the dead and she couldn't even do that. What does it matter? Even with the qualifier (and the Clintons are all about qualifiers) of what does it matter today, the administration LIED to the American people about this incident. and that's the good version of that particular story, because the alternative is that they were IGNORANT and not even I can buy that...

Jeff Flake made a few good points in his post on Facebook today:

It is regarding the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy that the Obama Administration still has not come clean. It seems clear that the President and his team fostered a world view with which a premeditated terrorist attack in Benghazi did not comport, so they spun these attacks (largely through Ambassador Rice's TV appearances) as a spontaneous protest.

Secretary Clinton's response during the hearing: "What difference does it make?" It makes a big difference, actually. To wage effective diplomacy, statecraft and military strategy, you have to see the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

Madam Secretary, it matters to the families that you lied to on that tarmac. In today's testimony, you claim that you cried and hugged family members of the fallen, but those families tell a much different story and they have FAR more credibility on ANY subject than you.

Flake was much more forgiving about the actual event than most of us who actually know that Benghazi isn't some dude who got kicked off American Idol. And unlike most pontificators (including myself) on the subject, he looks to the future.

"It's easy now, with hindsight, to see the warning signs regarding the lack of adequate security for our Ambassador and others. Requests for additional security were not heeded, but that is not an infrequent occurrence regardless of the Administration in charge. Attacks happen, and we are often unprepared for such attacks. We hope to be better prepared next time.

...

The recent events in Mali and Algeria are a reminder that we'd better understand this principle. If we don't, Benghazi will be just the beginning of our troubles."

The world is full of evil and people who wish to do us harm. While I agree that we shouldn't let that fact cripple us or interfere with our diplomatic efforts, we must take that threat seriously or people will continue to die.

UPDATE: How bad was this Clinton performance? It was so bad that the administration let it leak that Panetta is planning to announce Women in Combat so that the talking heads in the 527 Media would have something else to talk about tonight...

Bubba Cuts Off Obama's Knees

It's like Bill Clinton doesn't like Obama or something. In some of his most recent interviews, he has contradicted Obama's every play, first defending Romneys Bain record, calling it sterling. Now, he is countermanding Obama on the Bush tax cuts AND saying we are in a recession. From Cnbc:

Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year. In a taped interview aired on "Closing Bell," the still-popular 42nd president called the current economic conditions a "recession"....Clinton did say that Congress would be best off agreeing, at least for the time being, to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, including the so-called Bush tax cuts named after Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.
the government spending levels. But I think they look high because there's a recession," he said.

Did you see that last bit?bubba says we are in recession. He is in in favor of keeping tax cuts. He can't stand Obama. He is still bitter about Obama calling Hillary and Bill racists. Thanks, Bill, for the help. You know #obamaisntworking when even bubba betrays him.

Occupy Squatters Should Squat at Bill Clinton's House

Don't blame the banks. The government pressured them to give loans to people who had no chance to pay them back, then rewarded them for their finanical irresponsibility. And now we might have the smoking gun that implicates feebs like Dodd, Frank, and especially Clinton and Reno for haranguing banks into meltdown. From Investors.com:

what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

Bubble? Regulators Blew It

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

So, once again, liberals only looked at data that supported their view, and it took PRIVATE EFFORTS to uncover the truth, not government. Shocking. But wait, there is more:

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants' net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.

When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards — the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend "customary" underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."

To that end, lenders were directed to "make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market." They were also advised to "change commission structures" to encourage brokers and loan officers to "lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods" — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as "predatory."

Can you say: scapegoating private sector for doing what big government wants? I thought you could....

All under the guise of helping people, this was really about political and social engineering on a HUGE scale, damn the consequences:

FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the agency said in a separate advisory.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.

"Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans," the policy statement decreed.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios" of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%).

It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to "be prepared" to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren't racist. "The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."

It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.

So, government not only encouraged bad behavior, they rewarded it by buying up the subprime mortgages....But we can all be safe now, right? I mean, it's over...right? WRONG:

Clinton's task force survived the Bush administration, during which it produced fair-lending brochures in Spanish for immigrant home-loan applicants.

And it's still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.

As IBD first reported in July, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. "racist" banks.

"It's a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now," said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. "It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration."

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division "continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force." And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to "enhance fair-lending enforcement."

The fair-lending task force's original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker "greed," though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

So, we are going to see another bubble...one that will be even more destructive...that is why we must make sure Obama and the libs are thrown out in 2012.

State Department Contract Officer Keeps it in the Family

Gee, maybe we can find some money to cut from the State Department, since their contract officers give it out so generously to their own kin:

A special investigation by The Daily Caller has discovered that a State Department contract specialist participated in awarding more than $52 million in taxpayer-funded contracts to a company owned and operated by her husband and daughter.

Kathleen McGrade helped their company, Sterling Royale Group, win 43 federally funded contracts over the last few years.

McGrade acted as the Contracting Officer (CO) for awards to Sterling Royale Group. McGrade’s husband, Brian Collinsworth, serves as the company’s Vice President. McGrade’s daughter, J.L. (Jennifer) Herring, is its president and CEO.

When confronted, what did VP Collinsworth say? He tried to claim the he and McGrade were not married and that he is not the stepdad to Herring. But guess what?:

But wedding photographs and other personal pictures Collinsworth posted on MySpace.com suggest otherwise. TheDC has seen Collinsworth’s MySpace profile, last updated in early 2007, which declares that he is “happily married to my beautiful wife of one year, Kathy.”

“I have four children from a previous marriage and one brand new step-daughter (see photos),” Collinsworth adds in the profile. “At the moment, I’m working in the construction business doing Embassy work for the US Government.”

When TheDC approached him with this new evidence, Collinsworth cut off communications and has not returned further requests for comment.

Busted! But wait, there's more:

Since the State Department has refused to confirm or deny McGrade’s identity, TheDC presented photographs of Collinsworth and McGrade to Herring’s ex-fiancee, Keith Smithey.

Smithey confirmed that Collinsworth is married to McGrade, and that Herring is McGrade’s daughter. Smithey was at the wedding. “I was one of their groomsmen,” he told TheDC.

Smithey added that McGrade and Collinsworth covered their tracks and kept their marriage concealed from the State Department and others. “It was a big secret,” Smithey said. “In fact, they even told me it was a secret and not to tell anyone that they know that they are married, because of the whole conflict of interest and all that.”

In addition to photos documenting their marriage and their allegedly improper professional relationship, TheDC has discovered that McGrade and Collinsworth appeared as co-owners on a 2010 real estate record for a house in Stafford, Va. McGrade also publicly lists a condominium residence in downtown Washington, D.C.

When TheDC visited that building, a security guard confirmed that Collinsworth lives with McGrade at that address.

McGrade owns a boat named after Collinsworth’s and Herring’s company, too. According to records TheDC obtained, the ”Sterling Royale” is a 36.5 foot recreational boat registered to McGrade in Stafford County, Va.

Collinsworth’s name shows up on a dock space he and McGrade reserved for it at James Creek Marina in D.C. A staffer at James Creek confirms that they registered the spot but never brought that particular boat there.

What is Hillary going to do about this? Well, it has been referred to the inspector general. Read the whole article, as it further details the malfeasance and subterfuge of using the daughter so as to say the company was minority(woman) owned. Disgusting!

Debt Ceiling Details: Clinton Would be a Dictator, Which is exactly What McConnell Plan Provides For

Just when you thought things couldn't get crazier, Bill Clinton wades into the debt ceiling debate. He says he would just say fiddlesticks to that ol' Constitution thing and take the power of the purse strings from Congress. He would raise the debt ceiling by 'hisself':

Former President Bill Clinton said he would raise the nation's legal borrowing limit on his own if he had to and "force the courts to stop me" in order to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in history.

Clinton said he thinks President Obama and Republicans on Capitol Hill are going to cut a deal before August 2, "and that's smart."

But "if it came to that," he would raise the debt ceiling using powers granted under the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The amendment says that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

Never mind that the 14th Amendment nor the often cited Perry v. US say anything about the President taking the power of the debt limit, even though liberals will argue til they are blue in the face that it does:

Section four of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” It also declares “illegal and void” “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.”

This clause simply means that Congress and the President cannot question the validity of debt that is already incurred, but it in no way requires the nation to incur more debt. Even if it precludes temporary default—which is far from clear—it could not authorize the President to incur additional debt.

The Fourteenth Amendment was among those proposed and ratified during Reconstruction, and section four was its least-debated provision. During the Civil War, the Union had taken on massive debt to fund the war effort and had promised pensions to wounded soldiers and soldiers’ widows and orphans. The Confederate states had done about the same. Members of the 39th Congress, which excluded representatives of the Confederate states, feared that a future Congress dominated by Southern Democrats would wipe out Union debt and possibly seek to have the federal government guarantee the Confederate debt—an appalling possibility that would reward those who had financed an insurrection and risk political disruption for years to come.[1]

Their solution was to amend the Constitution to declare Confederate debt unenforceable while barring subsequent Congresses from “question[ing]” “the public debt of the United States.” This formulation was somewhat narrower than that of earlier proposals, which stated that federal “obligations”—potentially a more expansive category than debts—would be “inviolable.”[2] But it was also broader than the specific question at hand: the vitality of Civil War debts. This was deliberate. Senator Benjamin Wade, a proponent of the amendment, set forth the rationale:

I believe that to do this will give great confidence to capitalists and will be of incalculable pecuniary benefit to the United States, for I have no doubt that every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution….[3]

The Supreme Court’s sole opportunity to interpret and apply section four was in a 1935 case, Perry v. United States, which challenged Congress’s attempt to pay off bonds subject to a gold clause in devalued legal tender. The Court stated:

In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money “on the credit of the United States,” the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise…. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.[4]

This principle, said the Court, “applies [] to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress.”[5]

Constitutionality of the Statutory Debt Limit

Article I of the Constitution vests the power in Congress “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” and the power “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” From 1789–1917, Congress authorized nearly all federal debt directly by approving specific loans or issuances of debt instruments to finance specific projects or activities. That changed with the nation’s entry into World War I, which immediately strained the federal budget and led Congress to take a different approach: authorizing the Treasury to issue debt of varying terms in response to market conditions and need while capping aggregate debt.[6] This is, in its essential features, the system in place today.

In this way, the federal government could incur debt at a lower cost without Congress abdicating its constitutionally assigned power and responsibility to authorize and oversee the amount. The debt limit also serves to force Congress “to consider the interests of the general public and future generations…to step back and consider the consequences of its deficit-spending decisions.”[7]

The Constitution vests exclusive power in Congress to raise revenue to fund the government’s obligations, whether by taxes or loans.[8] Congress could not entirely delegate that power to the President, even if it wanted to do so.

Thus, not only is the debt limit consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers, but there is a colorable argument that it, or something like it, is constitutionally mandated.

An Unconstitutional Usurpation

The Constitution vests in Congress, and withholds from the Executive, the power to commit to spending, to raise revenue by enacting taxes, and to incur public debt. The Fourteenth Amendment does not alter this. Congressional control of borrowing, through the debt limit, and section four of the amendment are in unison, not tension.

First, debt limits do not repudiate existing debt. To “question” “the validity” of a debt is to cast doubt on the obligation itself, not other factors involving repayment. This is true as a matter of common law as well. Insolvency, in itself, does not impugn the validity of a debt, but only the debtor’s present ability to pay. Under federal bankruptcy law, repudiation occurs only with discharge of the bankruptcy petition—the “clean start” that bankruptcy promises. Indeed, a debtor may “affirm” a debt and commit to paying it despite a bankruptcy discharge; in that case, even where payments have lapsed for a time, the debt’s validity has never been questioned.

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment has no bearing at all on most federal spending, because most federal spending is not in service of a debt obligation and is not necessary to pay back existing debt. The Supreme Court has held specifically that Congress can alter government promises, as opposed to vested rights, at any time.[9] It has also held that even “entitlement” programs such as Social Security do not establish property or other rights that the government is constitutionally obliged to observe.[10] While the federal government is obliged to make good on its debts and contractual obligations that it has already incurred, it is not constitutionally committed to carry out other spending.

Even if additional borrowing were curtailed, the government’s revenues are more than sufficient to satisfy current debt payments and avoid a default. At present, debt repayment comprises only a small proportion of total federal spending. Less than 10 percent of total federal spending in the President’s 2012 budget would go to satisfying net interest on the national debt, and some additional percentage would go to satisfying other accrued debts.[11] Looked at another way, deficit spending constitutes about 43 cents of every dollar of federal spending. Thus, even with no deal to raise the debt ceiling, 57 cents of spending on the dollar could continue unimpeded—including all debt payments.[12]

Third, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specify any particular manner by which the obligation to honor the nation’s debt may be met. Congress may, for example, raise taxes, cut spending, or redirect funds to satisfy “public debt.” There is no constitutional requirement that it borrow. So if the President had the unilateral power to issue debt, why would he not also possess the power to raise taxes unilaterally or to sell off government assets?

The answer, as with borrowing, is that these powers are vested in Congress, not the President. No one seriously contends that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to place the taxing or selling powers in the President’s hands, which would be a fundamental reorganization of the branches of government and demolish essential checks and balances. So it is with the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Therefore, friends, Bubba's argument is unsound, and so is the McConnell plan. We would be ceding to Obama basically unilateral power when it comes to borrowing and debt and spending. That would make him, in essence, an unchecked dictator. He has already usurped many powers and gotten around the checks and balances system through executive agencies. Do not let this power be vested in him, either.

Pimp that Ride: Obama Edition

Hey, we are in a recession/slow recovery/double dip recession/depression/crapfest economy. Many people are having to keep their older cars longer and make the most with less. However, not if you are in the federal government. Here is the story:

Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News.

Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Guess Madam Hillary needs some new rides or something. The administration tries to defend this:

Obama administration officials said most of the increase reflects an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world. But a watchdog group says the abundance of limos sends the wrong message in the midst of a budget crisis. The increase in limos comes to light on the heels of an executive order from President Obama last week that charges agencies to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets.

According to General Services Administration data , the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 412 in 2010. Much of the 73 percent increase—111 of the 174 additional limos—took place in fiscal 2009, more than eight months of which corresponded with Obama’s first year in office.

This is just typical of the Louis the XVI/Marie Antoinette attitude of the Obamas. Hey, you have to work 173 straight days without a day off? Obama gets a vacation every 3 weeks, it seems like. Anyone know where I can find some good arugula? Disgusting!

Coalition of the Forced Into Acting on Libya Crumbles....

So much for international love and consensus:

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

-- Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, condemning the U.S.-led air assault on Libya

A second day of U.S. air strikes on Libyan positions came amid deepening anxieties among coalition partners about the means and objectives of the effort there.

But the coalition is currently suffering from a lack of direction and waning support.

Turkey blocked a bid to have NATO take over command of the operation, called Odyssey Dawn. The Arab League, which helped spur a sudden shift in the Obama administration late last week by calling for a no-fly zone, is now expressing misgivings about the size and ferocity of the effort.

The Russians and Chinese, who withheld a Security Council veto of a French-British-U.S. resolution allowing any military steps short of ground forces, are already tut-tutting the shock-and-aweish nature of the effort so far.

Much has been written about the conflict between the State Department and the Pentagon in the run up to the attacks on Libya – State reportedly favored action while the Pentagon publicly and privately warned of the cost and consequences of such a mission.

One retired general suggested to Power Play that while Hillary Clinton’s agency may have won the debate about intervention “it’s still up to the war fighters to fight wars.” The general’s “informed guess” was that the Pentagon was not interested in having weaker members of the coalition dictate strategy and insisted instead on overwhelming force if U.S. forces were to be put at risk.

“There’s a lot of anxiety from some people who see this as Iraq all over again.”

-- House Democratic aide to Power Play discussing Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya

There is bipartisan grumbling on Capitol Hill that President Obama, despite his denunciations of his predecessor for failing to further consult with Congress over invading Iraq, told lawmakers about his Libya attack plans rather than seeking approval or advice in advance.

While most Republicans say they would have given authority for the air strikes undertaken so far, there is growing concern on the right that the military, already obligated to fighting two wars, will be further stretched if the situation in Libya devolves. House Speaker John Boehner says he wants to know exactly what the mission is before the mission changes again.

There is deepening anxiety among Democrats though. While liberals generally appreciate the efforts to obtain U.N. blessing for the operation, there is unhappiness that Obama did less to consult with Congress about his Libyan attack than President George W. Bush did in advance of his invasion of Iraq.

Aw, snap! Barry didn't consult enough with Congress. Gee, could it be said that Dems in congress are missing GWB now? Guess Barry really does see our military as subservient to the whims of the UN. Hmmm.

But wait, there is more grumbling abroad:

cracks started to show Monday in the military coalition hastily assembled to take action on Libya as the Arab League and some EU countries wavered.

Criticism of the operation came swiftly after French jets took to the skies on Saturday to launch the first air strikes on Libyan targets in support of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa caused concerns on Sunday when he said the air strikes went beyond the scope of the resolution to implement a no-fly zone and said he was concerned about civilians being hurt in bombing.
Advertisement: Story continues below

But after a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Cairo on Monday, Mussa got back behind the military strikes.

"We are committed to UN Security Council Resolution 1973, we have no objection to this decision, particularly as it does not call for an invasion of Libyan territory," Mussa told a press conference with the UN chief.

However the Arab League's concerns seemed to have left their mark when European Union foreign ministers gathered for talks in Brussels on Monday.

Germany, which abstained in the Security Council vote when the resolution was passed on Thursday, said Mussa's criticism showed that Berlin had been right to fear military intervention.

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said: "We calculated the risks, and when we see that three days after this intervention began, the Arab League has already criticised this intervention, I think we see we had good reasons."

Italy said its offer to contribute eight Tornado jets to the military operation was accompanied by concerns that the allied campaign "shouldn't be a war" on Libya.

"We want to verify all the actions undertaken are consistent with the mission objectives" under the UN Resolution, said Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. "We do not want to go beyond the scope of the resolution."

Analysts say Germany and Italy's criticism stemmed from the coalition's targeting of Libyan tanks and forces on the ground, rather than simply limiting their actions to implementing a no-fly zone.

Germany's objections "are a mixture of political considerations, classic pacifism", annoyance at its fellow European power France's leading role in the operation "or poor diplomatic handling", said Dominique Moisi from the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

Italy, formerly a close ally of Moamer Kadhafi's regime, was playing its role as "a voice of discord".

While the Arab League returned to a more consensual position Monday, Mussa's approach illustrates the "schizophrenic position" of Arab states, said Jean-Pierre Maulny, of the Paris-based Institute of International and Strategic Relations.

Western nations have boasted of Arab participation in the coalition, but until now only Qatar has committed fighter jets.

The United Arab Emirates said Monday its involvement in Libya is limited to humanitarian assistance, despite reports that it too would send warplanes.

"Many countries are torn between the imperatives of their domestic and foreign policy: the Arab League knows Kadhafi is a problem and wants him to go, but at the same time there is a fear that Western intervention will be badly viewed by the Arab public opinion," he said.

In fact, everything hinges on the definition of the "no-fly zone".

Resolution 1973 permits "all necessary measures" to establish a no-fly zone, protect civilian areas and impose a ceasefire on Kadhafi's forces.

Gee, where is all that hopey changey, the world loves the US stuff we were supposed to get when Barry assumed office? Yet another campaign lie. The world now sees Obama for the joke that he is. And this pathetic loser appreciates it because he doesn't want to lead the free world. It is too much for him. Then, dude, there is the door. GET OUT.

North Korea Could Produce 2 Nukes a Year? Where was the State Department?

Perhaps if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were more concerned with keeping the peace instead of having diplomats spy and learn about what makes the leader of Argentina cry, we would have been more in front of this North Korean Debacle:

North Korea, which fired dozens of artillery shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong this morning, could make one or two bombs' worth of enriched uranium per year if its new enrichment facility is fully operational, a nuclear analyst says.

The shells killed two soldiers and set houses ablaze, according to Reuters, in one of the heaviest attacks on South Korea since the Korean war in the 1950s. The two countries then exchanged further fire.

These events closely follow reports on 20 November by an engineer and two nuclear policy experts from the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University in California that they saw an industrial-scale uranium enrichment plant in a visit a few days earlier to North Korea.

North Korean officials told the team that the plant has 2000 centrifuges that are already being used to separate fissile uranium-235 from the more abundant uranium-238.

If that is true, North Korea could make 30 to 40 kilograms of highly enriched uranium per year, enough for one or two nuclear weapons, says Hui Zhang of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Although North Korea is believed to already possess plutonium-based nuclear weapons, uranium-based weapons can be more efficient, allowing them to produce more powerful explosions, says Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC.

However, it is nice to know what Nick Sarkozy is eating and that Quadaffi travels with a Ukrainian blonde nurse. Don't you feel safer knowing these things?

VIDEO: Strickland vs. Clinton on NAFTA

OhioGOP strikes again!

Hillary the Hypocrite Says Bleed the Rich, While Hiding Her Assets

Well, she can't hide that big er, ahem.....

Hillary Clinton said the following the other day during a presser with some reporters:

This is my opinion. I'm not speaking for the administration so I will preface that with very clear caveat. The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues, whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are.

OK, that would be fine...if HillRod and Bubba weren't funnelling money through a formerly secret foundation. Now, I am not talking about the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Foundation and Whorehouse. Nope, I am talking about the Clinton Family Foundation. This foundation was not disclosed until relatively recently but:

has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001

Also, Hillary didn't list it on her disclosure forms as a Senator until called on it, which her office called a mere "oversight":

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

Clinton's spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator's position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

Hmm...not only are they engaging in bribes to Senate candidates, but they are hiding millions in assets that could be taxed for the "greater good", as Mrs. Clinton is fond of saying....Hmmmm.....

When Hillary Met the Taliban....

OK, did you see the exchanges last week between Madame Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, and the Taliban in Afghanistan? If you missed it, you missed a great example of why liberals should not be in charge during a time of war. Or, like, ever.

Check this out:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday at a U.N. conference on Afghanistan that Taliban members in Afghanistan who abandoned extremism must be granted an "honorable form of reconciliation."

"We must also support efforts by the government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al Qaeda and the Taliban from those who have joined their ranks not out of conviction, but out of desperation," Clinton said at an international conference on Afghanistan in the Hague.

"This is, in fact, the case for a majority of those fighting with the Taliban," she told delegates from more than 70 countries at the meeting.

Clinton's comments echo those of U.S. President Barack Obama who said this month that he was open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban.

Where is the moderate Taliban, anyway? How do we differentiate? Are the moderates the ones who behead you quick, as opposed to the extremes, who take their time? Come on now. I guess this Taliban is not very moderate:

The commander of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Tuesday for a deadly assault on a Pakistani police academy and said the group was planning a terrorist attack on the White House that would "amaze" the world. Baitullah Mehsud, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S., said Monday's attack on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore was retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone. He provided no details.

But you don't understand, conservatives...these people are oppressed...blah de blah blah...No liberals, you don't understand. You don't negotiate with evil. You eradicate it. But wait, this gets more interesting...I guess the moderate Taliban doesn't want to take HillRod and Barry the Buffoon up on their offer of love and joy:

The Taliban tonight dismissed American overtures for peace in Afghanistan.
Crushing an olive branch offered by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Taliban leaders rejected a U.S. appeal to moderate militants as ‘a lunatic idea.’
The Americans are hoping to isolate war weary Afghan fighters from their hard line Taliban and al Qaeda bosses by proposing an amnesty in return for them laying down their arms.
But her appeal was quickly shot down by Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, who said the Islamic fundamentalists would keep fighting until the U.S. pulled out of the country.
‘They have to go and find the moderate Taliban, their leader and speak to them. This is a lunatic idea,’ he said.

Newsflash, liberal morons, there is no moderate Taliban. They hate us. They want us dead. Nuff said. Therefore, we have to fight them. But, I guess, we could always do it the Clinton 90s way, and in ten years our kids will have another 9/11 on their hands....but that is OK, Barry can always say it didn't happen on his watch and seek to foist blame on someone else.

These people are scary stupid with their naivete and self hatred. It is no wonder they can't say War on Terror, and seek euphemisms. It might make them feel better about Francing our way to surrender.

Shocker! Mexico, Hillary Clinton, and Obama Admin Lying About Origins of Guns in Mexico...

You have heard the latest drumbeat for gun control as it relates to the Mexico problem. "90% of guns used in crimes in Mexico originate in the U.S." Hillary Clinton has recited it, Sec of Homeland Security has blabbed it, etc. Well, guess what, it is another lie perpetuated by the libs. FoxNews tells the truth:

You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before — on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

– CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

– California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

– William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one:

It’s just not true.

In fact, it’s not even close. By all accounts, it’s probably around 17 percent.

What’s true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency’s assistant director, “is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.”

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

Read more of the debunking by William LaJuenesse and Maxim Lott over at Fox News.

11/1/17UPDATE: The Fox News article referenced above is now available here.

Voinovich Update

Below is audio from yesterday's announcement. Video is available over at CSPAN here.



Today, our senior senator managed to remind us already why a good many of us are happy that he is retiring when he praised Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton's "smart power" in her turn at the plate in the softball game confirmation hearing.

Here is Voinovich on Portman:

“I consider myself to be one of his mentors.”

No ego there at all...

Joe Biden Questions Obama's Judgement...Again...

Could this be an Admiral Stockdale moment: "Why am I here?"

Here is what Slow Joe said today:

Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States. Let’s get that straight,” Biden said. “She is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She is easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, might’ve been a better pick than me

Here is the videotape...It just keeps getting better:


Judgement...judgement...judgement....

Could Biden be wanting out already?

"I Am Bulletproof"

I watched a lot of the Democrat Convention this week. I know I know, nothing else to do huh. Conventions are meant to excite the base, get people something to talk about and stir momentum. It is not usually meant to "convert" the masses to believeing what you believe.

Now my opinion going into it, the Dems needed to portray 2 things only. Barak Hussein Obama is not an elitist and he has the experience and confidence and wisdom to become Commander in Chief. To do this they put up some speakers talking about how great he is etc etc etc.

Now did this work? Monday night Michelle came on and talked about how underpriveledged they all were. I applaud anyone who makes something of their life, but it gets tiring hearing from someone with a million dollar house who went to ivy league schools as underpriveledged. Nice speech but not really anything new. I doubt if people out there really think that this works.

Tuesday the attacks start. The keynote. No not Hillary. Mark Warner. He tried to build up Obama but was very unimpressive. In fact he received almost zero press. Then Hillary. I do give her credit. How do you give a speech to "unify" the party yet set yourself up to run next time when Obama loses. Her speech was ok. She does do a nice job firing up HER base. But I did not think besides saying hey go vote for Obama that she really showed she was behind Obama. In fact barely mentioned him. The only other thing to watch is Beau Biden.

Wednesday the VP. No not a Clinton. Ambassador Sarek looking Joe Biden. His job is not to attack. Attack the Republicans, McCain, Bush, steroids, global warming, and anything else he can get his hands on. I saw him more as a guard dog you seee while biking the barks and foams at the mouth in your neighbors yard but is chained up and cant really do anything. So you throw a stick at it and keep on biking. Then der Slickster. I give him credit, he can speak and get a crowd fired up. But honestly this ended up being a legacy speech. His main support of Obama was if he does exactly what I did he will be a great President. If he does every one of the list of Democratic talking points for the last 30 years he will be a great president. Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit "I am bulletproof". Put me in the history books now.

Thursday Barak Hussein Obama tried to make history. Good speech but it was a speech of attacks and promises, not of accomplishments. Funny he said one thing that cracked me up. " What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.". This coming from a man who goes to a 80,000 person stadium and tries to replace Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial. Come on now. I think it was ok but proof is in the pudding so to speak. Can any remember most of the speech even 48 hours later?

Team McCain Strategy Memo Re: DNC Convention

In a memo dated August 22, Team McCain strategist Sarah Simmons outlined her view of what they were expecting to have happen the last five days...

Monday marks the beginning of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A combination of factors makes this particular convention historic on many levels. Democrats have just completed an incredibly compelling primary cycle that has both energized and divided the Democratic Party. Because of the unique nature of the Democratic primary, we believe Obama will receive a significant bump from his convention.

This cycle mirrors Bill Clinton's Democratic convention in 1992: A historic 16-point bump. Barack Obama is more similarly situated to Bill Clinton in 1992 than any other candidate in recent history. Bill Clinton was a new candidate on t he national scene; he was running in a "change" oriented election cycle and the economy was voters' top issue -- a dynamic he was able to capitalize on. He received a 16-point bump coming out of his convention. Obama is also a "new" candidate in a change-oriented environment. And, like Bill Clinton, he will spend the convention presenting himself as the agent of change who will fix the economy.

Obama will ride his VP bump. In addition to Obama taking advantage of the political environment, he will announce his Vice Presidential candidate late this week. This announcement typically gives a candidate a 5-point temporary bump that dissipates. However, Obama's timing allows him to maximize his Vice Presidential bump and sustain press attention for the course of the week. He will ride the wave of an announcement from late this week (announcement expected by Saturday) through his speech on Thursday. This means that whatever bump he gains from the announcement has the potential to be lasting.

Obama will correct his underperformance with Hillary Clinton's primary voters and emerge with a much more cohesive base. This convention gives Obama a platform to unite his base. There continues to be a divide in the Democratic base: Between 10-15% of Democrats are voting for McCain or sitting on the fence. In target states, that number is even higher, between 15-20% in many surveys. The Obama campaign knows that winning or losing in states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania depends on Obama's ability to bring these voters home. If his convention successfully showcases Hillary Clinton and heals the wounds from the primary, he will move large groups of voters in those key places.

Obama's stadium address on Thursday -- the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech -- will result in effusive and overwhelming press coverage. On Thursday, Obama will give a great speech, as has been his trademark. The press will sing his praises and remark on his historic address and Obama's place in history. For example, The Associated Press today published an article comparing the historic nature of the addresses - a week before Obama's speech. This coverage will be impenetrable and will undoubtedly impact the polls.

We believe Obama will see a significant bump, and believe it is reasonable to expect nearly a 15-point bounce out of a convention in this political environment.

Now, we still have tonight and tomorrow to endure, but I don't think we're going to see a 15-point bounce. Biden didn't help. Michelle didn't help on Monday. Hillary didn't help last night. Bill and John Kerry aren't going to help tonight. And I highly doubt 15 points are going to mysteriously appear at Obama's Temple after tomorrow night's performance.

I'm not seeing significant signs that Obama has been able to settle the score with Hillary voters so party unity is still a problem. That second paragraph about Obama looking like Clinton in '92 is just a farce. Clearly this whole thing is an exercise in building up the expectations so that when what has happened transpires Obama will have underperformed.

I'll agree with my good buddy Sean, who in the comments to this post called the convention "vanilla" as I haven't really heard much excitement out of Denver.

15 points...that's a good one...

No Bounce for Obama/Biden; McCain Pulls Even

There are still a few days left of the big bash in Danver, but Team Obama can't be real happy with the way the numbers are looking so far. With the kickoff of the Democratic national convention and the announcement of Slow Joe Biden as the running mate, one might expect that there would be an uptick in the numbers. Rasmussen Reports has the race deadlocked at 44% apiece (46% apiece with leaners). Team McCain has come all the way back and made this thing a real race.

Biden was no help... I don't think he hurts Obama, but he doesn't help him. Here is how our friends at the polling company framed it:

Obama’s support has declined in each of the last three individual nights of polling. This may be either statistical noise or a reaction to the selection of Biden. If it’s the latter, it probably has less to do with Biden than Hillary Clinton. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democratic women say Clinton should have been picked and 21% of them say they’ll vote for McCain.

That sounds about right to me. For all the bluster coming from Denver about how unified their party is, Team Obama has a real problem on his hands and its name is Clinton...

Another potential problem for Obama if the trend continues is favorability. McCain is viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 53%. These numbers might also represent some heartburn for Team Obama:

Better Leader: 46% say McCain, 38% Obama….Personal Values Closest to Own: McCain 46% Obama 39%

These numbers may not seem like much...and they aren't...but this is a race that may be won by inches, not yards.

Meanwhile, John Sidney McCain will be back in Ohio on Friday -- supposedly to announce his running mate -- in Dayton and the WMD Crew will be there.

Clinton...Edwards...Obama

Bear with me as I take a moment to free associate some ideas here...

Back in the day, people were talking about John Edwards as the next Bill Clinton. he was young, energetic, and had good hair. The media and the leftyshpere loved him.

But Edwards was never able to live up to the hype that surrounded him. He took his one term in the Senate and made a go at the presidency but failed and wound up on John Kerry's sinking ship.

Enter Barack Obama...

One term as senator. He's young, energetic and has good hair. The media is in love with him and the leftyshphere has embraced him too.

Will Obama flame out like Edwards has? And I don't mean have an affair...I mean politically...

Commodore Decker's Planet Killer Surrenders

AP News Alert:

WASHINGTON (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to end her historic presidential campaign.

The nation's worst political nightmare scenario has been averted... Perhaps now we'll finally start to see more honesty about the travesty that was our 42nd President of the United States.

6/5/08 UPDATE: In case you don't get the reference, here is a shot of the original Commodore Decker's Planet Killer:



And here is the view from the Captain's Chair...

Ask WMD: 08POTUS and Down Ticket Races

An Anonymous commenter asked this question last week:

What effect do you guys think having Obama/Mccain at the top of the ticket will do to the local Congressional races? I just read the story on Politics Extra about Chabot's chances in the fall with Obama bringing out new voters in droves. Do you think the democrats out east who heavily support Clinton over Obama will stay home, or will the vote republican?

Clearly, Barry Hussein O'Carter will bring out the drones in droves; but I don't think his appeal will be as broad as some may think. Obama isn't likely to appeal to much of the Purple Counties here in Ohio, for instance, as his values don't match up with theirs in most instances.

Steve Chabot, in OH-01, might be in some trouble as that is the only Purple County district that I see where the momentum shifts in Obama's favor; but there is no guarentee that Obama voters won't vote for Chabot anyway. Chabot has lived in this district forever and has worked very hard on their behalf. His fundraising prowess is exceeded only by the number of hours he's put in shaking hands and kissing babies. While the demographics of the district are changing, I think Chabot has at least one more cycle left before the numbers turn against him.

As for Democrats "out east" who support Commodore Decker's Planet Killer now... I think the quantity of those voters will dwindle with time, but I do think that there is a significant number of them who are likely to sit it out or vote McCain. Will that be enough? I'd like to think so, but I'm more confident that when the time comes those folks are going to return to form and vote for the guy with the "D" at the end of his name.

Mark? Sean? Any thoughts? Readers, have at it in the comments...