Wolf Howling

The Price Of Oil - NYT Mystified By Cause & Effect

2009-07-06T00:27:00.010-04:00

The price of oil is swinging violently and trending ever upwards. The NYT is at a loss to explain it:

The extreme volatility that has gripped oil markets for the last 18 months has shown no signs of slowing down, with oil prices more than doubling since the beginning of the year despite an exceptionally weak economy.

The instability of oil and gas prices is puzzling government officials and policy analysts, who fear it could jeopardize a global recovery. . . .

A wild run on the oil markets has occurred in the last 12 months. Last summer, prices surged to a record high above $145 a barrel, driving up gasoline prices to well over $4 a gallon. As the global economy faltered, oil tumbled to $33 a barrel in December. But oil has risen 55 percent since the beginning of the year, to $70 a barrel . . .

Read the entire article. The NYT goes on to quote speculation that the instability in Nigeria and Iran are playing a significant role in the rise in oil prices, but both of those are of recent vintage and do not account for the steady upward rise in oil prices since the beginning of the year.

Anyone who couldn't see this coming is not paying attention. I wrote a month ago, in the post "The Looming Crisis In Energy Costs," that we would soon face another energy crisis. None of the causes in demand that gave rise to $145 a barrel oil have disappeared permanently. Obama has refused to live up to his promise to allow expanded exploitation and exploration of our domestic oil resources - perhaps the only thing in the near and mid-term that could actually stabilize world oil prices. And on top of that, he has, with the cap and trade bill, declared war on our energy industry, particularly on coal which provides almost 50% of our energy. This is bound to increase demand for oil. Lastly, oil is priced in dollars. A weak dollar causes higher prices for oil - and Obama is in the process of destroying the value of the dollar.

As I wrote in the above referenced post, all of these factors are clear indicators that we can expect a real crisis in oil costs. There is no reason for the NYT to be mystified by the rise in prices over the past six months. Cause and effect are clear. The NYT just needs to start some honest reporting.

The Goracle Needs A New Analogy

2009-07-05T15:38:00.004-04:00

Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise questioned the science of [global warming]. Frustrated, Mr. Gore retorted, “There are people who still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

Al Gore, comparing global warming skeptics to moon landing skeptics, Al Gore Heads To The Hill To Push Climate Change Bill," Knoxville News Sentinel, 25 April 2009

Dr Aldrin said he was sceptical of climate change theories.

"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," he said.

"If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.

"I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it."

Interview of Dr. Buzz Aldrin, second person to set foot on the Moon, "Buzz Aldrin calls for manned flight to Mars to overcome global problems," The Telegraph, 3 July 2009

Shia Clerics At Qom Attack The Iranian Regime

2009-07-05T14:36:00.008-04:00

Iran is still simmering; there is still fire beneath the ashes of the savage repression, and no one knows what the tens of millions of anti-regime Iranians will do in the coming weeks and months.

Michael Ledeen, Refusing To See Evil Clearly, The Corner at NRO, 29 June 2009

With a brutal hand, Iran's theocracy has been successful over the past days in driving the protestors off of Iran's streets. It is a tactical victory, just as the Shah had tactical victories in the early days of Iran's year long revolution three decades ago. It does not mean that the war is won or lost.

The regime is still pushing the meme that the election was fair and that the discontent is the result of "traitors," including Mousavi, in the pay of the U.S. and U.K. Iran's theocracy, like medieval theocracies of old, depends for its legitimacy on the governed believing that their clerical overlords are acting in accordance with divine guidance. Few if any in Iran can be operating under such a fantastical belief now. And in an important development, one of the major religious organizations in Iraq issued a public statement calling the election a fraud and the government illegitimate. This from the NYT:

An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.

A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant . . . setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult.

“This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”

The announcement came on a day when Mr. Moussavi released documents detailing a campaign of fraud by the current president’s supporters, and as a close associate of the supreme leader called Mr. Moussavi and former President Mohammad Khatami “foreign agents,” saying they should be treated as criminals.

The documents, published on Mr. Moussavi’s Web site, accused supporters of the president of printing more than 20 million extra ballots before the vote and handing out cash bonuses to voters. . . .

“The significance is that even within the clergy, there are many who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the election results as announced by the supreme leader,” said an Iranian political analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. . . .

The clerics’ statement chastised the leadership for failing to adequately study complaints of vote rigging and lashed out at the use of force in crushing huge public protests.

It even directly criticized the Guardian Council, the powerful group of clerics charged with certifying elections.

“Is it possible to consider the results of the election as legitimate by merely the validation of the Guardian Council?” the association said.

Perhaps more threatening to the supreme leader, the committee called on other clerics to join the fight against the government’s refusal to adequately reconsider the charges of voter fraud. The committee invoked powerful imagery, comparing the 20 protesters killed during demonstrations with the martyrs who died in the early days of the revolution and the war with Iraq, asking other clerics to save what it called “the dignity that was earned with the blood of tens of thousands of martyrs.”

The statement was posted on the association’s Web site late Saturday and carried on many other sites, including the Persian BBC, but it was impossible to reach senior clerics in the group to independently confirm its veracity.

The statement was issued after a meeting Mr. Moussavi had with the committee 10 days ago and a decision by the Guardian Council to certify the election and declare that all matters concerning the vote were closed.

But the defiance has not ended.

With heavy security on the streets, there is a forced calm. But each day, slowly, another link falls from the chain of government control. Last week, in what appeared a coordinated thrust, Mr. Moussavi, Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Khatami all called the new government illegitimate. On Saturday, Mr. Milani of Stanford said, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani met with families of those who had been arrested, another sign that he was working behind the scenes to keep the issue alive.

“I don’t ever remember in the 20 years of Khamenei’s rule where he was clearly and categorically on one side and so many clergy were on the other side,” Mr. Milani said. “This might embolden other clergy to come forward.” . . .

Read the entire article. Our concentration should be on isolating and punishing the bloody theocracy and insuring that news such as statement from the Shia clerics this makes it around government efforts to control the news in Iran. Obama's concentration is, as I posted below, the opposite.

Foreign Policy Folly Take 2

2009-07-05T13:04:00.005-04:00

To describe Obama and Biden as bumbling amateurs would be to give bumbling amateurs a bad name. Today's monumentaly counterproductive act - Iraq.

Iraq is a nascent democracy whose importance to the world as the only Arab democracy in the Middle East cannot be overemphasized. It could well revolutionize the Middle East and it is a huge threat to the mortal enemy of civilization that is Iran's theocracy. Iraq is a democracy that still faces significant internal challenges, particularly the Kurdish issue, as well as challenges from a host of individuals, groups and nations that want to see Iraq's secular democracy fail. The biggest external challenge comes from Iran's theocracy that wants to see the U.S. out and Iraq turned into a giant Lebanon, where the dominant power is a Shia militia controlled from Tehran. So Obama sends Biden to Iraq and what does he do:

Vice President Biden warned Iraqi officials Friday that the American commitment to Iraq could end if the country again descended into ethnic and sectarian violence. . . .

One official said the vice president made it clear that if Iraq returned to ethnic violence, the United States would be unlikely to remain engaged, “because one, the American people would have no interest in doing that, and as he put it, neither would he or the president.”

Read the entire article.

Obama and Biden may look askance at Iraq since success there is a validation of the polar opposite of Obama's foreign policy beliefs. But like it or not, Obama and Biden now own Iraq. If it fails on their watch, they can give all the excuses in the world, but the bottom line is they will have thrown away the most important development in the Middle East in the past three decades. And the statements from Biden could not highlight that any more.

Biden's statement has to demonstrate to all Iraqis that the U.S. is not a loyal ally. Indeed, in the calculus of the Middle East, where the end of a government traditionally comes in a massive slaughter, Obama-Biden just told Iraqis to hedge their bets.

The only reason Iraq is where it is today is because of Bush's absolute committment to protect the nascent democracy. Obama and Biden just announced the polar opposite. Perhaps most insidiously, Biden's statement is an open invitation to all those who want to see Iraq fall to pick up the violence and mayhem. The last time a public figure did anything this dumb was 1950. Obama says he is a "student of history." I'd love to know what books he has studied from, as his texts apparently do not extend back to Jan 12, 1950, when Sec. of State Dean Acheson, gave a speech indicating that we would not defend South Korea. North Korea, backed by Russia and China, took that as a green light to invade South Korea. Obama and Biden have just given the green light to Iran, al Qaeda, and all others who want Iraq's democracy to fail.

It would be hard to imagine anything more counterproductive from our two idiots in the White House - nor anything more dangerous for our soldiers in the country. These jokers have yet to take one action on any major foreign policy issue that is in America's interests. The bottom line, 2012 cannot come fast enough.

Foreign Policy Folly

2009-07-05T03:26:00.009-04:00

Obama's foreign policy is a disaster. He has yet to get a major challenge correct, from North Korea to Honduras to Iran. As to Iran, Obama is still holding out hope for talks with the theocracy and now has taken indefensible and wholly counterproductive position that there should be no new sanctions imposed on the theocracy for their brutal repression of the Iranian people.
________________________________________________________

This guy, honest to God, is worse than Neville Chamberlain. This from Haaretz:

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.

. . . U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany.

American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members. . . .

Read the entire article.

This is insane and insidious in equal measure. How many things are wrong with this? By my count, at least seven.

One, this tells the theocrats not only that their brutality and repression will have no international consequences, but more importantly that Obama will not act out of concern for how overboard the theocracy might react. In other words, Obama is giving the Iranian regime power over our foreign policy. This is Neville Chamberlain territory. This is how France and England of the 1930's responded to Hitler's provocations.

Two, this tells the people risking life and limb to protest this brutal and corrupt regime that they are on their own. They will find no support from an Obama administration that is prioritizing talks with the illegitimate theocrats. As an aside, the Obama administration not only does not support the spread of democracy, but if we include Honduras in the mosaic, then it appears that Obama is willing to actively act against democracies under threat if it somehow serves Obama's personal agenda It is certainly not serving the best interests of America.

Three, there is every reason to believe a revolution that throws the theocrats out of power and dismantles the IRGC would remake the Middle East overnight. It is not a panacea for all ills, but it sure is a panacea for many of them - the nuclear issue, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Sudan, and Bahrain are at the top of the list. So what is Obama doing to support a revolution? The regime is in deep trouble economically from a combination of Bush sanctions, massive corruption and Ahemdinejad economic mismanagement. A large portion of the population want to see the theocrats out. So why are we not seeking deep international sanctions on the regime in an attempt to push it over the brink?

Four, what in the history of the Iranian theocracy leads Obama to believe that they will respond to restraint and gestures of good will? Iran negotiated directly with us over Iraq - all the while they were killing our soldiers and attempting to Lebanize the country. Indeed, there is nothing in the theocracy's thirty bloody years of existence to suggest that they negotiate in good faith or that they have any intention of altering their behavior, particularly towards us. In a post the other day, Michael Ledeen said:

For those who wish to think clearly about Iran, there are two fundamental facts:

* the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at war with us ever since the overthrow of the shah in early 1979;

* the savagery they have unleashed on the people of Iran is precisely what they want to do to us.

There is a third fundamental fact that Ledeen has previously mentioned.

"Iranian resources are largely devoted to the cause of jihad, not to Iran per se. If Iran goes down the drain, but a new caliphate is created, first in the region and then globally, that’s success by their standards.

In other words, the primary motivator of Iran's theocracy is to spread the Khomeinist revolution. Everyone from Khomeini to Khameini to Ahmedinejad has been absolutely clear on this point. And they see no moral constraints on their actions to achieve their goal. Sec. of Def. Gates summed it up perfectly when he said last year that "everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike." This is a regime with no morality and no conscience, just blind ambition to retain power and to spread itself throughout the world like a cancer. They resemble no nation so much as Nazi Germany in the mid-1930's. And in relation to their prime motivators, failing to impose sanctions will have zero impact on the Iranian regime's behavior. It does nothing to threaten their hold on power, nor their ability to spread their revolution.

Five, what in the history of negotiations on the nuclear issue with the EU-3 or like groups suggests to the Obama administration the unilateral talks will have the slightest impact on Iranian behavior? Indeed, the last such meeting, in July 2008, ended with Iran refusing to talk about the nuclear issue and, instead, making a proposal for a format for an "open-ended, cost-free, high-level negotiating process" that, said one of the European negotiators, “would take a minimum of several years” if implemented.

Six, what makes Obama think that Iran will not act offended and blame the world for their internal dissent wholly irrespective of the the U.S. and Europe do? That is precisely what the theocracy is doing today. That is why Mousavi is being called an agent of the U.S., with calls for his "arrest for treason" in the theocracy's major newspaper. It is why Khameini in his Friday sermon blamed the unrest on the UK, the US and Israel. It is why workers for the British embassy now languish in Iranian prison, awaiting a kangaroo court.

Seven, and lastly, what does Obama think that he can possibly offer Iran to make it change its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Iran has rejected the entire panoply of carrots the West could offer. The only reason the theocracy might cut a deal now would be if whatever Obama proffered would help the theocracy retain power. In other words, unless Obama is prepared not merely to ignore the brutalized people of Iran, but actively connive in their repression, going forward with unilateral or bilateral talks and refraining from imposing sanctions make no sense.

It would be hard to imagine a more counterproductive foreign policy than that carried out to date by Team Obama. I can recall no President, even Jimmy Carter, being close to this bad. And I am willing to bet we are only seeing the half of it. We know Obama has cut all funding for promotion of democracy in Iran from next year's budget. Anyone want to bet that the CIA and the rest of our covert operators are being instructed to do nothing to support the unrest in Iran? Obama is not merely a weak President, he is a dangerous one.

Happy Fourth Of July

2009-07-04T01:25:00.006-04:00

Art: The Declaration Of Independence, John Trumbull
_________________________________________________________

In Congress, July 4, 1776,

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the right of Representation in the legislature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the People.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of Peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens, taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions, We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in GENERAL CONGRESS assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, DO, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE, That these United Colonies are, and of Right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Bri tain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that, as FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. AND for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

JOHN HANCOCK, President

Attested, CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary

New Hampshire:

JOSIAH BARTLETT, WILLIAM WHIPPLE, MATTHEW THORNTON

Massachusetts-Bay:

SAMUEL ADAMS, JOHN ADAMS, ROBERT TREAT PAINE, ELBRIDGE GERRY

Rhode Island:

STEPHEN HOPKINS, WILLIAM ELLERY

Connecticut:

ROGER SHERMAN, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, WILLIAM WILLIAMS, OLIVER WOLCOTT

Georgia:

BUTTON GWINNETT, LYMAN HALL, GEO. WALTON

Maryland:

SAMUEL CHASE, WILLIAM PACA, THOMAS STONE, CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON

Virginia:

GEORGE WYTHE, RICHARD HENRY LEE, THOMAS JEFFERSON, BENJAMIN HARRISON, THOMAS NELSON, JR., FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE, CARTER BRAXTON.

New York:

WILLIAM FLOYD, PHILIP LIVINGSTON, FRANCIS LEWIS, LEWIS MORRIS

Pennsylvania:

ROBERT MORRIS, BENJAMIN RUSH, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, JOHN MORTON, GEORGE CLYMER, JAMES SMITH, GEORGE TAYLOR, JAMES WILSON, GEORGE ROSS

Delaware:

CAESAR RODNEY, GEORGE READ, THOMAS M'KEAN

North Carolina:

WILLIAM HOOPER, JOSEPH HEWES, JOHN PENN

South Carolina:

EDWARD RUTLEDGE, THOMAS HEYWARD, JR., THOMAS LYNCH, JR., ARTHUR MIDDLETON

New Jersey: RICHARD STOCKTON, JOHN WITHERSPOON, FRANCIS HOPKINS, JOHN HART, ABRAHAM CLARK

Farewell Sarah

2009-07-03T23:12:00.005-04:00

In a bizarre decision, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, announced today that she will step down from her post effective 26 July. It is not clear precisely what is driving this decision, and the reasons she gave in the speech above seem, as Ed Morrisey describes them, near "incoherent." If its because she is fed up with the unprecedented personal vitriol leveled at her and her family by a media gone wild, that's understandable. If she is dropping out with an eye towards running for the Presidency at some point in the future, she just shot herself in the foot. She ran and was elected governor in Alaska. She has a duty of loyalty to the people of her state. If she is now putting that aside for her own personal ambition, that would be an extremely poor decision indeed. At this moment, we are getting more than our fill of narcissists with extremely poor judgment in the White House. I doubt many will want to trade one for another in 2012.

Boondogles On The Taxpayer Dime

2009-07-03T00:43:00.006-04:00

Gateway Pundit nails this one:

As [tax fraud and still Ways and Means Chairman, Dem. Rep.] Charlie Rangel demonstrates, spending all of your money and your children's money is exhausting work. Even Congress needs a little vay-cay every once in awhile.

Remember--- This is not a Shared Sacrifice Recession.

The Pelosi-Reid Congress is not only spending more of your money and giving themselves raises and bonuses they are also spending more on exotic excursions than ever before.

Do read the whole post. Gateway Pundit goes on to quote from a The Wall Street Journal article that documents that tax-payer funded junkets have risen by an amazing 50% - to over $13 million on overseas travel - now that the left controls our national check book. The fact finding trips to Iraq and Afghanistan are one thing. The fact finding trips to "Jamiaca, the Virgin Islands and Australia's Great Barrier Reef" are another entirely. Just more water in the swamp Pelosi told us she would drain in 2006.

Barney Frank Vies For Washinton's Most Toxic Asset

2009-07-02T17:00:00.005-04:00

Few people have played such a disastrous role in our nation as Barney Frank. He has been a key architect of the mortgage mess that is at the heart of our economic meltdown. Since the mortgage market crashed, that hasn't slowed this utterly shameless and dangerous man. He has strong-armed the bond rating companies not to downgrade municipal bonds and floated a plan to have the federal government insure all state and local bond issues. A few days ago, he asked Fannie Mae to start accepting loans on condos that they currently deny as too risky. His latest is now to take repayment of TARP funds - money that is by law supposed to go into the general funds and be used to pay down our crippling debt - and use it to fund one of his latest brilliant plans. This from Byron York:

When President Obama announced on June 9 that some financial institutions would be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars, he said the massively expensive TARP bailout had made money for the federal government. "It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit," the president said. Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.

But now Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers. Last Friday, Frank introduced the "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009," a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.

. . . Last month, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, through June 12, 2009, the government had received $6.2 billion in dividend payments. The original TARP legislation required that money made from the program "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

Frank, however, wants to spend the money before it can be used to pay down anything. First, the "TARP for Main Street" proposal would take $1 billion "from dividends paid by financial institutions that have received financial assistance provided under…the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and apply it to a trust fund that Frank has long wanted to create for low-income rental housing. (The measure, unfunded, was part of last year's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) Next, Frank would take $1.5 billion from TARP dividends for a so-called "neighborhood stabilization" fund. Republican critics have charged that both measures might allow federal dollars to be distributed to activist groups like the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, or ACORN.

The "TARP for Main Street" bill would also spend $2 billion, apparently from remaining TARP funds, to subsidize people who are delinquent on their mortgages, and another $2 billion to "stabilize multifamily properties that are in default or foreclosure." . . .

Read the entire article. I mean, its not like we need to be concerned about the size of our budget, right? Barney Frank is a clear and present danger to this country.

WaPo & The Latest Prostitution Scandal

2009-07-02T15:10:00.007-04:00

New York may have the gray lady, but in Washington, they have the Painted Lady.

You gotta love WaPo's new business model. It combines MSM reporting with our world's oldest profession. As one commentor at Michelle Malkin calls it, presstitution. They were organizing "a series of policy dinners" at the home of WaPo's publisher that were being marketed to lobbyists as a chance to "access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress and Post journalists in exchange for payments as high as $250,000." If you think about it, in the era of Obama, it certainly makes sense. I mean, we've been calling for the MSM and Obama to get a room for some time now.

Alas, it was not to last. With the news made public, WaPo has now cancelled its illicit assignations. There are a ton of disclaimers coming out of WaPo at the moment. I can't wait to see tomorrow's front page. Even Howard Kurtz is taking his paper to task over this one. As well he should. If there is any truth at all to this, WaPo's credibitily will utterly tank.

Cap, Trade & Calculations

2009-07-02T00:03:00.011-04:00

To repeat that which bears repeating ad infinitum, cap and trade is the single most ill advised piece of legislation quite likely ever in our nation's history. Cap and trade is not a "green" bill. It will do nothing to reduce global temperatures - though the sun has taken care of that for us these past seven years. Cap and trade is a massive regressive tax, it is an attack on business, and it is a vehicle for a massive power grab by the left side of our government.

Today, Robert Zubrin at Roll Call does some 'back of the envelope' calculations on the real costs of the cap and trade bill. It is a must read. As he notes, the cap and trade bill portends to be "a massive and highly regressive tax on the U.S. economy, and could potentially cause not only extensive business failures, unemployment and privation within our borders, but starvation among poorer populations elsewhere."

This from Mr. Zubrin:

. . . According to a report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in April, by 2015 the price of carbon emission indulgences required by the bill for industries to operate could be expected to run between $13 and $17 per ton of CO2 emitted. . . . That said, let’s stipulate the $15/ton midrange of the EPA estimate, and see what it implies.

The United States emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year. Therefore, at a rate of $15/ton fee for emission indulgences, the bill would impose a tax of $135 billion per year on the nation. Divided by the U.S. population of 300 million, that works out to a cost of $450 per year levied on every American man, woman or child, or $1,800 for a family of four. While for wealthy individuals like Al Gore such an impost might represent a mere pittance, for working families struggling hard to make ends meet it would be a very significant burden.

But that is not even the worst part of it. As a result of the markup of carbon costs, a lot of those working families will be out of work and unable to pay their existing bills, let alone new ones. Consider: Burning one ton of coal produces about three tons of CO2. So a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a tax of $45/ton on coal. The price of Eastern anthracite coal runs in the neighborhood of $45/ton, so under the proposed system, such coal would be taxed at a rate of about 100 percent. The price of Western bituminous coal is currently about $12/ton. This coal would therefore be taxed at a rate of almost 400 percent. Coal provides half of America’s electricity, so such extraordinary imposts could easily double the electric bills paid by consumers and businesses across half the nation. In addition, many businesses, such as the metals and chemical industries, use a great deal of coal directly. By doubling or potentially even quadrupling the cost of their most basic feedstock, the cap-and-trade system’s indulgence fees could make many such businesses uncompetitive and ultimately throw millions of working men and women onto the unemployment lines.

A gallon of petroleum-derived liquid fuel produces about 20 pounds, or 1 percent of a ton, of CO2 when burned. But it takes about 1.5 gallons of oil to produce one gallon of refined liquid fuel. So a $15/ton tax on CO2 emissions will also cause an increase in the price of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel on the order of $0.22/gallon. This will not only hit consumers’ pockets, but increase transport costs throughout the economy, thereby disabling businesses and increasing unemployment levels still more. While harming the economy, such a gas tax will do nothing material toward the truly essential goal of decreasing America’s dependence on foreign oil. Indeed, the bill’s dramatic hikes in electricity costs will have the opposite effect, since only 3 percent of America’s electricity is derived from oil, and by forcefully increasing electric power costs, the bill will actually discourage adoption of electric means of transport, . . .

But all these bad aspects of the Waxman-Markey bill pale before its potential impact on the world’s food supply. America’s agricultural sector is one of the greatest success stories in human history. In 1930, hunger still stalked the entire globe. Not just in Africa, India and China, but even in Europe and America, the struggle to simply get enough food to live on still preoccupied billions of people. Since 1930, the world population has tripled. But instead of going hungrier, people nearly everywhere are now eating much better. This miracle is the work of American farmers, who have not only produced huge surpluses to feed the world, but used the income gained from such good work to pioneer ever more advanced techniques that have enabled farmers everywhere to grow more. . . . But this miracle depends upon the availability of cheap fertilizer and pesticides, which in turn require carbon-based process energy to produce. If you tax carbon, you tax fertilizer and pesticides. If you tax these things, you tax food, and by no small amount. A $15/ton CO2 tax would increase fertilizer production costs directly by about $60/ton, with the cap-and-trade bill’s increased transport costs inflating the burden still more. That’s enough to make many farmers use less fertilizer, and less fertilizer means less food.

To get a sense of what it would mean for farmers to abandon fertilizer, it is only necessary to go to the supermarket and compare the price of the “organic” produce, grown without chemical fertilizer, to the regular produce, which, while just as nutritious, typically costs less than half as much. . . .

In the 220 years of our republic, there may have been worse pieces of legislation enacted by Congress than the Waxman-Markey bill, but none readily comes to mind. The Senate needs to take a stand and stop this disastrous act from passing into law.

Read the entire article. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

___________________________________________________________

Update: See also this from Forbes, Waxman-Markey Flunks Math:

In the U.S., electricity is produced from . . .:

48.9% -- Coal
20% -- Natural Gas
19.3% -- Nuclear
1.6% -- Petroleum

Got that? A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources: coal, gas and nuclear. Petroleum brings the contribution of so-called "evil" energy--that is, energy that is carbon- or uranium-based--to almost 90%.

The remaining sources of U.S. electricity, the renewables, are, by comparison, tiny players:

7.1% -- Hydroelectric
2.4% -- Other Renewables
0.7% -- Other

Hydroelectric accounts for 70% of renewable energy in America. But, of course, hydro is mostly tapped out. Almost every dam that could be built has been built. Ironically enough, political opposition to building more dams comes from the same crowd of tree huggers who oppose coal, gas and uranium.

Do you see where I'm going?

The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House on Friday by a 219-212 margin will punitively tax energy sources that contribute 90% of current U.S. electricity (or 71% if you want to leave out nuclear). The taxes will be used to subsidize the 10% renewable contributors (but really just 3% after you leave out hydro).

In other words, Waxman-Markey is betting the future of U.S. electricity production on sources that now contribute 3% . . .

__________________________________________________________

If passed, I have no doubt that cap and trade will ultimately be repealed, but not before doing untold damage to our economy that might take decades to repair. And the people who ultimately will pay the highest price for this epic boondoggle will be the poor and the lower middle class. The intelligentsia of the left speak of populism and concern for the poor, but the reality is that they value power above all, irrespective of who suffers as a result of their acts. Controlling carbon allows the left to expand their power into every aspect of our economy and our life. If you doubt Speaker Pelosi's honesty when she said that, to control carbon, the left had to examine "every aspect of our lives," then just look at what else is in the cap and trade bill. This from Doug Ross, discussing some of the ancillary provisions in the House Cap and Trade bill:

It creates hundreds of new bureaucracies that benefit Obama's contributors; for example, it creates a "Development Corporation for Renewable Power Borrowing Authority" that issues "Community Building Code Administration Grants" under a "Low Income Community Sustainable Development Capacity Grant Program". This scam serves two purposes: it rewards failed housing programs like those run by Presidential Adviser Valerie Jarrett; it also provides yet another spigot of funds -- in blocks of $1,000,000 -- for groups like ACORN.

• It creates and regulates every building code in the country and will purposefully overrule any "city, county, parish, city and county authority, or city and parish authority having local authority to enforce building codes and regulations and to collect fees for building permits."

• It reaches into every neighborhood by eradicating "any private covenant, contract provision, lease provision, homeowners' association rule or bylaw, or similar restriction" to force localities to accept "green technologies" whether it fits in the neighorhood or not.

• It touches every aspect of water and sewer systems by regulating every "residential water efficient product or service"; ensuring those offerings are rated and forcing state government, local or county government, tribal government, wastewater or sewerage utility, municipal water authority, energy utility, water utility, or nonprofit organization to comply. . . .

• It defines "energy-efficient mortgages" (with our favorite GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so what could possibly go wrong?) that artificially boosts the income of the borrower based upon how much "green technology" is employed. In other words, the Democrats are socially engineering mortgage underwriting standards again, just as they did in the nineties, which will lead to yet another financial disaster. . . .

Read the entire post. God help us if the Senate now passes this utter abortion.

(Cartoon H/T - No Oil For Pacifists)

Welcome, EU Referendum readers.

Let The Judging Of The Stimulus Begin

2009-07-01T23:02:00.005-04:00

As the White House Press Secretary instructed yesterday . . .

Obama promised that if we passed his economy-busting stimulus package, all would soon be right with our economy and unemployment would top out at 8.6%. So how are we doing?

Unemployment, which long ago burst through the ceiling Obama promised us, has again increased. Another 437,000 jobs were lost in June. This from Tim Blumer at Bizzy Blog, doing the math on the pace of the stimulus:

ADP’s reported June drop of 473,000 is a whole 12,000 jobs below May’s revised 485,000.

At that steady rate of “improvement,” the economy will start adding jobs in October 2012, after having lost over 9,000,000 jobs in the meantime

Hmmmm, that is pretty bleak. Is there any good news on the tax receipts for June? . . . Ummmmm, nope. They continue to fall, also.

Has there been any good news of late out of Washington.

Oh yeah . . . Obama is going to save the planet by massively taxing our economy and driving our energy sector to its knees. I think you can call that doubling down on the stimulus. That's not too good.

Neither is the fact that the the left is trying to figure out how to massively increase taxes to pay for this non-stimulating stimulus.

Hold it, hold it. There is some good news. As Steny Hoyer wrote a few days ago, "Democrats won't be the part of deficits." They plan to require Congress to fully fund all of its newly enacted goodies via pay-go legislation. Well, the legislation does allow massive borrowing to enact Obama's pet projects, but right after that, by God, our socialist overlords are going to be the paragons of fiscal responsibility.

Update: James Pethokoukis, blogging at Reuters, wonders how Obama, with his rosy scenarios, got it all so wrong.

It’s not so much that a more negative forecast would have prevented Obama from spending large amounts of money, it’s that he would have been forced to tilt the stimulus more in favor of tax cuts which work a lot of faster than government spending (though both are pretty inefficient as “stimulus”).

And Obama wanted to spend billions on his “investment agenda (healthcare, education, infrastructure), not tax cuts. (And if he had spent the $2 trillion that some liberals wanted on stimulus, it surely would have crowded out the rest of his agenda, plus rattled the bond markets.) So he gambled that monetary policy would keep the economy from getting as bad as it has. And he lost. Did Team Obama purposely give a bad forecast, or did its old fashioned Keynesian approach merely lead it astray? Good question. Either way, it’s the Obamacrats’ economy now.

So how would you judge this stimulus?

The Racism Of The Left

2009-07-01T20:39:00.009-04:00

Racisim is alive and well in America. It is appropiate that the only living one time member of the KKK in Congress today is a Democrat. As I have written in detail here, racism is and has historically been a prime driver of the left. And nowhere is it on display today more than in the NYT editorial on the Ricci case.

The Ricci case, which I posted on extensively here, involved several New Haven, Conn. white and Hispanic firefighters who earned the right to be promoted after passing a test meticulously designed to be race neutral and to test only those areas most applicable to the positions of fire dept. captains and lieutenants. The City threw out the results because no blacks had earned a promotion.

The full facts of how the city of New Haven came to toss out the results is a story of vile race baiting and reverse racism. You have to read Justice Alito's concurrence to get the full facts. You can find those facts here.

The two New Haven Fire Dept. Chiefs, one of whom is black, saw nothing unfair in the test. Both were of the opinion that the test results should have been certified and the promotions granted. None of the many black and Hispanic senior Fire Dept. personnel from outside of New Haven who administered the oral portion of the exam thought that it was discriminatory in any way. And then there was Vincent Lewis:

Vincent Lewis, a fire program specialist for the Department of Homeland Security and a retired fire captain from Michigan. Lewis, who is black, had looked “extensively” at the lieutenant exam and “alittle less extensively” at the captain exam. He stated that the candidates “should know that material.”

The person who most vociferously argued against certifying the results was Rev. Boise Kimber. As Alito makes apparent, Rev. Kimber, a close associate of New Haven's left-wing Mayor, is a clone of Rev. Jerimaih Wright. And now, the NYT joins in the call. What all of these people have in common is that they are children of identity politics that would make permanent victims of minorities.

The penultimate holding of the Supreme Court is that racisim, whether traditional or reverse, is still racism made unlawful under Title VII (they never reached the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.) Moreover, while the Court applauded the efforts of New Haven to create a racially neutral hiring procedure that would not favor whites, to go beyond that, to disregard merit and gerrymander the results to achieve a specific racial mix is unlawful racism.

But that is not how the NYT sees it. While the purpose of the NYT editorial is to provide cover for the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, the authors nonetheless give us their opinion of the Ricci case. According to the NYT, "[o]n Monday, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace." The NYT ignores all of the facts covered above and concludes that throwing out the test did not result in an act of discrimination. The gist of the NYT authors is that a racially balanced result trumps merit. You can read it here.

Not only does such an attitude explicitly condone reverse racisim, but it is deeply racist itself. Implicit in their position is the proposition that blacks are incapable of competing on a level playing field with whites. If that is not the very definition of racism, I don't know what is.

Obama promised us an America where the racial divide is healed. The truth is that this type of racisit identity politics is the far left's raison d' etre. They have no intention of giving it up.

On a different note, the NYT today also has an insightful article on the Supreme Court, making the argument that Chief Justice Roberts is incrementally and methodically inching the Court to the right. Unlike the editorial referenced above, this news analysis piece is a worthwhile read for Supreme Court watchers.

Cap, Trade & Tax

2009-07-01T20:01:00.003-04:00

The latest from the NRCC, an ad, as Hot Air points out, that is virtually written by the left.

The initial estimate of cap and trade's cost to American's was pegged at just under $4,000 per family. Since then, the CBO has come out with a ridiculously low ball estimate of $175 per household. That seems to be utterly ridiculous actually, given not only the direct effects of this tax, but the indirect effects that will be equally as problematic. The Heritage Foundation released their take on the CBO estimate a few days ago:

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that had proponents of the bill claiming Americans could save the planet for just $175 per household. That was the figure CBO estimated cap and trade would cost households in 2020 alone.

Both the CBO's analysis and the subsequent legislation are troubled: The analysis grossly underestimates economic costs while the legislation will have virtually no impact on climate. Overall, there are a number of basic problems with CBO's analysis:

- Their allowance cost numbers do not add up;

- They ignore economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill; and

- The analysis is an accounting analysis, not an economic analysis. . . .

Read the entire article. (H/T Terry Trippany)

Looking at the whole mosaic of what will be impacted by the cap and trade bill - which is every good, service and person that uses energy, plus the costs we will incur from a declining domestic energy industry - I am inclined to see the $4k estimate as much more realistic. It is good to see the NRCC ad on this most ill advised of legislative proposals. Republicans should be beating their chests over this on a daily basis.

The Election Ain't Over Til The Fat Lawyer Counts

2009-07-01T18:11:00.008-04:00

There he is, the newest Senator from Minnesota.

Al Franken is going to the Senate, in part because of his team of lawyers did all they could to mainipulate the vote count in Minnesota after the election initially turned for Sen. Norm Coleman. And Franken is going to the Senate, in part because Sen. Coleman's legal strategy regarding the vote count was inept. And Franken is going to the Senate with the assistance of a biased State Canvassing Board that came down strongly on Franken's side. This from the WSJ, giving a requim for a stolen election:

The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.

But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.

What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel's findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn't demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn't lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact. . . .

Read the entire article. The final word - let's give it to Glen Reynolds: Caligula sent a horse to the Senate. Minnesota is just sending part of the horse.

Watcher's Council Nominations & An Opening

2009-07-01T17:42:00.004-04:00

Each week, the members of the Watcher's Council nominate one of their own posts and a second from outside the Council for consideration by other council members in a contest for best post. The Watcher publishes the results each Friday morning.

There is an opening at the Council if you would like to nominate your blog for the Council. If you go to the Watcher's site, you will find instructions on how to apply on the right-hand sidebar.

Terry Trippany plays the role of Watcher of Weasels. Do visit the Watcher's Site for his theme of the week. This week, it is the disasterous cap and trade bill just passed unread in its entirety by the House:

As you know the House passed the Waxman-Malarkey cap-n-tax global warming bill thanks in part to 8 sellout Republicans that took money from environmental whackos in return for a vote that will cost American’s millions of jobs, further erode our nation’s competitive standing and suck more of the hard earned money you make from your family so it can be siphoned to friends of those in Congress.

But don’t believe me. The Heritage foundation took a look at the figures from both the EPA and the CBO and found that they vastly under estimated their numbers. These are the numbers being peddled as fact for your reference.

Today’s liberals however see the Heritage numbers as a conservative ploy. . . .

Terry continues on, noting that the real culture of corruption lies on the left. Do read his entire post.

This week's nominations are:

Concil:

The Razor - Settlement

Rhymes With Right - How A Real President Responds

Joshuapundit - Masquerade In iran

The Glittering Eye - Affording Everything

Mere Rhetoric - Shh… Massachusetts Proves Mandate-Based Health Reform Will Be A Disaster

Wolf Howling - Politicized Science

Soccer Dad - Diehl me out

Bookworm Room - All violence is equal, but some violence is more equal than others

The Provocateur - The Libertarians Downfall: Conspiracy Theories

Right Truth - LIFE

Non-Council

Submitted By: The Watcher – Forbes.com – Karl Gaard - Waxman-Markey Flunks Math

Submitted By: The Razor – Financial Times - Obama is Choosing to be Weak

Submitted By: Rhymes With Right – Delaware Liberal - Should Sanford Resign?

Submitted By: Joshuapundit – Diana West - “Role of Women in Iran Protest Kindles Hope”…OF WHAT?

Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – The League of Ordinary Gentlemen - Iraq June 30th

Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric – Kaplan / Washington Post - Iran’s Struggle, and Ours

Submitted By: Wolf Howling – EU Referendum - Rigging The Debate

Submitted By: Soccer Dad – Fausta’s Blog - Responses to “Coup in Honduras – Correction: This is NOT a coup”

Submitted By: Bookworm Room – Christina Hoff Sommers - Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship

Submitted By: The Provocateur - George Will - On Race The Long Hard Slog Continues

Submitted By: Right Truth - American Daughter - Religion and Politics Don’t Mix — Monday, June 29,

Heading Towards A Massive Tax Increase

2009-06-30T23:17:00.012-04:00

“Nothing is so well calculated to produce a death-like torpor in the country as an extended system of taxation and a great national debt.”

William Cobbett, English pamphleteer and journalist, February 10, 1804

***************************************************************

It would seem that what we are doing today is reinventing a very old wheel. We have the "great national debt," compliments of a left wing spending spree of astronomical proportions. Indeed, the level of debt and borrowing and the massive increase in the money supply is, to quote economist Arthur Laffer, "potentially far more inflationary than were the monetary policies of the 1970s, when the prime interest rate peaked at 21.5% and inflation peaked in the low double digits."

We are not on the road to economic recovery. Indeed, Bizzyblog documents that the Treasury is showing that federal tax receipts continue their steady decline, with yet another slump in June. Obama's Keynesian experiment in using massive government spending to make the economy grow is failing spectacularly. But Obama is clearly not going to forego any of his plans for ever more massive spending, making confiscatory new taxes inevitable.

As it stands today, no new taxes are in the cards for anyone who earns under $250,000 - unless of course they use tobacco, they use energy or purchase any good or service that requires energy, or they get non-union health care benefits. But even those proposed or already enacted taxes - which in the case of cap and trade will be massive - will not be enough to fund the grandiose socialist schemes of our Profligate Spender In Chief. So what will be the next to fall?

According to Roger Altman, Bill Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary, more taxation is inevitable and will likely come in the form of a VAT tax - driving up the cost of every good and service in our country in what amounts to highly regressive national sales tax. This from Mr. Altman writing in the WSJ:

Only five months after Inauguration Day, the focus of Washington's economic and domestic policy is already shifting. This reflects the emergence of much larger budget deficits than anyone expected.

Larger than anyone expected? Obama just borrowed and spent us into penury and the deficit surprises Altman? Apparently he was in suspended animation until yesterday.

. . . Why has the deficit outlook changed? Two main reasons: The burst of spending in recent years and the growing likelihood of a weak economic recovery.

Burst of spending in recent years? Try the burst of uncontrolled spending since January, 2009, multiplying the 2008 deficit by a factor of 4.

[A weak economic recovery] would mean considerably lower federal revenues, the compiling of more interest on our growing debt, and thus higher deficits. Yes, the President's Council of Economic Advisors is still forecasting a traditional cyclical recovery -- i.e., real growth of 3.2% next year and 4% in 2011. But the latest data suggests that we're on a much slower path. Probably along the lines of the most recent Goldman Sachs and International Monetary Fund forecasts, whose growth rates average about 2% for 2010-2011.

A speedy recovery is highly unlikely given the financial condition of American households, whose spending represents 70% of GDP. Household net worth has fallen more than 20% since its mid-2007 peak. This drop began just when household debt reached 130% of income, a modern record. This lethal combination has forced households to lower their spending to reduce their debt. So far, however, they have just begun to pay it down. This implies subdued spending and weak national growth for some time.

In a March 27 forecast, Goldman Sachs estimated average annual deficits of $940 billion through 2019. If this proves true, deficits would remain above 4% of GDP through the next decade and the national debt would reach a whopping 83% of GDP, a level not seen since World War II. The public is restive over this threat: In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Americans were asked which economic issue facing the country concerned them most. Respondents chose deficit reduction over health care by a ratio of 2 to 1.

Mr. Obama and his economic advisers understand this deficit outlook and undoubtedly view it as unsustainable.

I think Mr. Altman assumes too much. Obama seems bound and determined to push ahead with his massive plans irrespective of the cost to our economy. As to what Mr. Obama "understands," I think that is very much at issue, particularly in light of his incredibly cynical push for "paygo" legislation that would exempt his massive pet projects from its provisions. I have yet to see a single thing from Obama that he understands the debt he proposes to saddle us with is "unsustainable."

. . . The poor budget outlook may impel the administration to follow up health-care legislation with an effort to fix Social Security. The shortfall in Social Security's trust funds -- which adds to the long-term deficit -- is much smaller than the companion problem in Medicare funding. Public anxiety over deficits may make this fix possible now even though it has been elusive for years. If this could be done, confidence in Washington's capacity to address its debt challenge would rise.

But even with a Social Security fix the medium-term deficit outlook will be poor. Sometime soon, perhaps in 2010, Main Street and financial markets will exert irresistible pressure to reduce the deficit.

The problem is the deficit's sheer size, which goes way beyond potential savings from cuts in discretionary spending or defense. It's entirely possible that Medicare and Social Security will already have been addressed, and thus taken off the table. In short we'll have to raise taxes.

Today, the U.S. ranks next to last among the 28 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations in total federal revenue as a share of GDP. Our federal revenues represent 18% of national output, down from 20% just 10 years ago. That makes the mismatch between our spending and our revenue very large, producing the huge deficits we face.

We all know the recent and bitter history of tax struggles in Washington, let alone Mr. Obama's pledge to exempt those earning less than $250,000 from higher income taxes. This suggests that, possibly next year, Congress will seriously consider a value-added tax (VAT). A bipartisan deficit reduction commission, structured like the one on Social Security headed by Alan Greenspan in 1982, may be necessary to create sufficient support for a VAT or other new taxes.

This challenge may be the toughest one Mr. Obama faces in his first term. Fortunately, the new president is enormously gifted. That's important, because it is no longer a matter of whether tax revenues must increase, but how.

Hold on to your wallets. There has long been talk of using a VAT tax to replace the income tax system. But what Altman is suggesting is a VAT tax on top of the income tax. And the chances of this being a bipartisan effort - other than a bare handful of nominal Republicans in the House and Senate - is zero. The left has brought us to the brink with spending on a heretofore unseen scale. They own it. I hope the left enjoys their complete control of the levers of our federal government at the moment. File this one under "give 'em enough rope and they will hang themselves."

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

2009-06-30T16:31:00.006-04:00

Ramierez couldn't have summed it up any better. As I said in the post below, Obama's foreign policy is wholly dysfunctional. He is dangerous.

Masters Of Disaster Set To Strike Again - Will The Ricci Decision Stop Them

2009-06-30T12:33:00.006-04:00

(Picture from Protein Wisdom)

Many of the same people who brought us the current economic collapse - the left generally, with Barney Frank, ACORN and Obama in particular - are at it again. Rather than fixing the problems they created over two decades, each are doubling down. Obama is planning to vastly exand the Community Reivestment Act. Barney Frank is pushing a new version of subprime lending on Fannie Mae. ACORN is out thugging the major mortgage brokers. But a speed bump may now be in their path. The Supreme Court decision in Ricci yesterday might actually be the tool that defangs the racially charged Community Reinvestment Act and curbs some its abuses by the Masters of Disaster.

****************************************************************

We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression because of a catastrophic failure of the mortgage loan market. At the very heart of that failure is the racially charged Community Reinvestment Act. (For an in-depth discussion of the CRA and its impact on our economy, please see Hurricane Subprime, 1977-2000.) Without that, we have no economic collapse.

The CRA was used by the likes of ACORN and Obama to force reduced lending standards. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pushed Fannie and Freddie to provide a vastly expanded market for these sub-prime and reduced standard loans. There were other significant contributing factors.

There were the bond rating services that inexplicably and wholly misrated mortgage backed securities. There is mark to market accounting rules that require corporation to show mortgages that cannot be sold in the current collapsed market as having no value, irrespective of the fact that they do have value. And we had the derivative market that failed catastrophically when the entire mortgage market failed. All these played ancillary roles in the meltdown that has had a severe domino effect throughout our economy.

But all of that has gone down the memory hole with the left in complete charge of the government. No hearings have been held on the causes of this economic nightmare. If you listen to Barney Frank, he has always been the paragon of fiscal responsiblity. If you listen to Obama, the CRA played no role in the meltdown, it was all the fault of evil capitalist pigs on Wall St. Indeed, instead of fixing any of the above problems, Obama, Frank, and ACORN are busy doubling down.

As to Barney Frank, this from the WSJ documents his latest insanity:

Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers.

You read that right. After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development. . . .

Fannie and Freddie have always been political creatures under the best circumstances. But we don't remember anyone electing Mr. Frank underwriter-in-chief of the United States.

Read the whole article. Frank is, I've long maintained, a clear and present danger to the United States.

ACORN, for its part, is out doing what it does best - strong-arming financial institutions. This from the American Spectator:

ACORN, which played a starring role in creating the subprime mortgage crisis, plans to add insult to injury by harassing lenders across the nation with protests tomorrow in an effort to coerce them into supporting President Obama's Making Home Affordable foreclosure-avoidance program.

Austin King, director of ACORN Financial Justice, sent out a press release today advising of the demonstrations that are planned as part of its "Homewrecker 4" campaign. The four financial companies targeted are Goldman Sachs, HomEq Servicing, American Home Mortgage, and OneWest. . . .

ACORN plans to hit Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York City, Wilmington (Del.), Columbus (Ohio), Houston, Little Rock, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, and Seattle.

But let's not forget that ACORN helped to cause the mortgage bubble by strongarming banks into making loans they shouldn't have. And cheering them on was ACORN's lawyer, Barack Obama, who contributed to the increasingly hostile environment for banks when he represented plaintiffs in the 1995 class action lawsuit Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank. The suit demanded that Citibank grant mortgages to an equal percentage of minority and non-minority mortgage applicants. The bank settled the case three years later and reportedly agreed to beef up its lending to unqualified applicants. . . .

But the worst of the worst is Obama and his plan to put the disasterous Community Reinvestment Act on steroids as part of his 89 page proposal for massive government intervention in our economy, “A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation.” The CRA uses an analysis precisely like that in a "disparate impact" claim under Title VII to determine whether financial institutions are making enough loans to minorities. As it stands now, banks cannot defend against a finding of insufficient loans to minorities under the CRA by pointing to their individual portfoloio to show that they have not engaged in discrimination, but rather have applied loan standards evenly and without reference to color. The government applies the CRA to require a racially balanced result.

You will recall that yesterday, the Supreme Court decided in Ricci that application of legitimate, race neutral criteria was what Title VII required and that it would be an unlawful act of racism for an institution to throw out the results of a test because it did not provide a racially balanced result. Though decided in the context of Title VII, Ricci provides a general principle of law that should be applicable to the misuse of the CRA by our government to engage in outcome oriented, social engineering. One can only hope that some attorney, somewhere, is polishing the Ricci decision and preparing to use it as the centerpiece against the CRA. That would go a long way to defanging Obama, Frank, and ACORN.

Gov. Sanford & Iran's Supreme Guide Khameini

2009-06-30T12:14:00.010-04:00

According to South Carolina's Governor for the moment, Mark Sanford, God wants him to finish out his term as governor. Somehow, I doubt that he got that message from a burning bush.

I find Gov. Sanford's invocation of God as supporting his decision to be substantially the same as Iran's mid-level cleric-cum-Supreme Guide Khameini invoking God as having supported the landslide reelection of Ahmedinejad. Both are making despicable use of religion to support the unsupportable. They claim divine intervention to color their obvious moral wrongs. Both are equally detestable and do harm to their respective religions by their actions.

The only difference between the two is that Khameini should be hung for the murder and repression he has ordered in the wake of his illegal acts. Sanford should be prosecuted for misuse of state funds. Beyond that, both will ultimately answer to a higher power whom I doubt will take a permissive view of their actions.

Obama - 180 Degrees of Wrong

2009-06-30T11:04:00.011-04:00

Is Obama insane?

The democraticaly elected President of Honduras, Zelaya, makes an extra-Constitutional power grab even after the highest Court in Honduras rules it illegal. On the eve of that act, he is replaced during the final six months of his administration. That wasn't a coup. That was defense of democracy and the rule of law. It was ordered by a properly convened Court. It was supported by a democraticaly elected legislature. And now Obama is joining hands with Chavez, Castro and other enemies of the U.S. and of democracy to condemn the actions in Honduras and reinstate the President?

If you ever needed evidence that Obama should never have been let near the oval office, this completes the mosaic we saw begin over a year ago with Georgia, when their democratic regime came under assault from Russia. Obama did not come out in support of democracy then, not until he took a lesson from McCain. The lesson didn't stick. Two weeks ago, as Iranians were being brutalized and murdered in the streets by a regime that had just engaged in massive vote fraud, Obama sat silent and then, despicably, played down the importance of the revolt. Now, when a country acts to preserve its laws and Constitution against an extra-Constitutional assault from a rabid socialist following the Chavez model, Obama supports the one who was seeking to violate the constitution. Obama really does see the U.S. as the problem. He has no understanding of the intrinsic importance of democracy and the rule of law. He has embraced moral equivalence and is unable to discriminate friend from foe.

History is important, and true, the U.S. has been involved in more than one coup in Central and South America. History should inform all of our acts - but it should never hold us hostage. As Hot Air notes, it may be that, in some incredibly naive burst of deeply opaque motivation, Obama is trying to repair America's image by coming out on the side of Chavez, Castro et al. If so, it is inexplicably foolish.

This is bad - and holds the potential to get much, much worse. The last president that even approached this level of dysfunction was James Earl Carter, and he gave the world the Iranian theocracy. I do not know what Obama's legacy will be, but I fully expect it to be far worse.

For Obama's future reference on such matters, Charles Krauthammer provides a rule of thumb:

Ricci - The Rest Of The Story

2009-06-29T16:01:00.010-04:00

The Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Ricci v. Destefano yesterday, held that, while employers have a duty to make their hiring criteria racially neutral, once they have done that, they can't use race as a basis to disregard merit. This decision . . .

. . . should significantly impact those class of claims where no actual racism is shown but claims of racisim are made on the basis of statistics;

. . . will make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in "disparate impact" claims and should significantly curb the practice of employers caving to the demands of race baiters;

. . . may well have an important effect in areas outside of employer-employee law where such statistical evaluations of race are used, such as in college admissions and, of critical importance, under the Community Reinvestment Act;

. . . marks a step towards answering whether and to what extent affirmative action is Constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

. . . looks bad for Sotomayor but will not by itself derail her nomination.

. . . the little publicized facts of Ricci are that vile race baiting and blatant reverse discrimination were the driving forces behind the City's decision to throw out the test results in that case. The claim of potential liability for disparate impact was a pretext.

************************************************************

The Ricci case was brought by some white and Hispanic firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. The firefighters had passed a promotion test that the City refused to certify because no blacks had scored high enough to also be promoted.

The penultimate issue is whether using race as a discrimating factor is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court did not reach that issue, limiting its holding to Title VII law. But as Justice Scalia noted, the case marks a step towards "the evil day" when the Court will have to answer that question.

Title VII allows two ways to prove discrimination. One is actual discrimination against a specific individual. In the legalese of Title VII, that is called "disparate treatment."

The second way is to prove discrimination under Title VII is statistically. If the overall process of hiring and promoting results in minorities being underrepresented, then it raises what is called a "disparate impact" claim. Once a plaintiff statistically shows a disparate impacat, then the employer has to show that the criteria it used was racially neutral and business related. If the employer can show this, then the plaintiff can only prevail if he or she shows that there was an equally viable test or criteria that would not have resulted in the disparate impact.

On the facts of Ricci, it was clear that New Haven took great care to insure that the hiring process would be racially neutral and carefully tailored to question on the most important topics relating to fire fighting duties. The people that were hired to design the test came to New Haven, engaged in extensive interviews and ride alongs, and when they developed the questions, they oversampled minorities to insure that the questions would not inadvertently favor whites. As to the boards for the oral exams, the people that sat on the boards were fire dept. senior personel from outside New Haven, two thirds of whom were minorities.

In short, the City had adopted a hiring criteria that resulted in situation where a minority plaintiff could bring suit and prove a prima facie case of disparate impact because no minorities scored high enough to be promoted. However, to toss the test based simply on this fact would be an unlawful act of racism / "disparate treatment" against those people who passed the test. And that was precisely what the Supreme Court said an employer cannot do. An employer can now only lawfully throw out tests and start over if they can show "a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient . . ."

The general consensus is that this will make it harder to prove "disparate impact" claims. Further, it should significantly curb the practice of employers caving to the demands of race baiters when they have acted reasonably and without discriminatory intent - which actually is what went on Ricci. I cover those facts in detail at the end of this post.

The decision should also impact outside of employer-employee arena, in areas such as college admissions. Additionally, it might well have an impact on banks and mortgage lenders under the Community Reinvestment Act - that piece of ill advised legislation at the very center of our economic meltdown. The CRA now includes provisions that use statistical analysis to punish banks who have not made "sufficient" loans to minorities, irrespective of whether neutral lending criteria was followed in each and every loan decision. Obama has proposed vastly expanding the CRA under his proposal for massive regulation of our financial sector. But I see no reason that the Ricci decision would not also apply in the banking context.

As to Justice Sotomayor, this Ed Whelan at NRO

Judge Sotomayor thought it appropriate to use an unpublished summary order to dispose of the claims of the New Haven firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano. Today the Supreme Court issued 93 pages of opinions in the case that Sotomayor acted to bury.

Further, although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven.

All of that is true, but the bottom line is that this was a split decision and trying to make the fine point that there is a significant difference between Sotomayor's handling of the case and the position of the four dissenters will likely be lost in the spin.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent in essence arguing for the good to be had from practicing reverse discrimination in the future to atone for original sins of our forebearers. Richard Epstein does a good job of fisking her stroll down memory lane.

On a final note, the facts of this case are far more objectionable than I have ever seen in the MSM stories covering it. The City threw out the test not simply out of fear of being sued disparate impact. Reverse racism played a predominant and ugly role. Justice Alito tells us the rest of the story in his concurring opinion.

This story is, I think, truly typical of the split in the African American community. You see on one side the majority of the african american community who take no substantial part in identity politics. On the other side are those for whom identity politics defines everything. Thus, in this case, the vast majority of African Americans who were involved in the hiring process thought it fair and that the results should be certified. Where you get the vile reverse racism is from a race baiting community organizer/Rev. Wright style preacher and a left wing Mayor who feeds the preacher in return for votes.

Here are the facts from Justic Alito's opinion minus the citations:

. . . “[A] jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, theMayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”

This admission finds ample support in the record. Reverend Boise Kimber . . . is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “‘kingmaker.’” On one occasion, “[i]n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot duringthe murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.”

Reverend Kimber’s personal ties with seven-term New Haven Mayor John DeStefano (Mayor) stretch back more than a decade. In 1996, for example, Mayor DeStefano testified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber — then the manager of a funeral home — was prosecuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath. “Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano’s political campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable political supporter and vote-getter.” According to the Mayor’s former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable political asset because “[h]e’s very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties to labor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots.”

In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as the Chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), “despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal management.” In that capacity, Rev. Kimber told fire fighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because “‘they just have too many vowels in their name[s].’” After protests about this comment, Rev. Kimber stepped down as chairman of the BFC, but he remained on the BFC and retained “a direct line to the mayor.”

Almost immediately after the test results were revealed in “early January” 2004, Rev. Kimber called the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, Karen Dubois-Walton, who “acts ‘on behalf of the Mayor.’” Dubois Walton and Rev. Kimber met privately in her office because he wanted “to express his opinion” about the test results and “to have some influence” over the City’s response. . . . Rev. Kimber adamantly opposed certification of the test results . . .

On January 12, 2004, Tina Burgett (the director of theCity’s Department of Human Resources) sent an e-mail toDubois-Walton to coordinate the City’s response to the test results. Burgett wanted to clarify that the City’s executive officials would meet “sans the Chief, and that once we had a better fix on the next steps we would meet with theMayor (possibly) and then the two Chiefs.” The “two Chiefs” are Fire Chief William Grant (who is white) and Assistant Fire Chief Ronald Dumas (who is African-American). Both chiefs believed that the test results should be certified.

Petitioners allege, and the record suggests, that the Mayor and his staff colluded “sans the Chief[s]” because “the defendants did not want Grant’s or Dumas’ views to be publicly known; accordingly both men were prevented by the Mayor and his staff from making any statements regarding the matter.” The next day, on January 13, 2004, Chad Legel, who had designed the tests, flew from Chicago to New Haven to meet with Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Thomas Ude, the City’s corporate counsel. “Legel outlined the merits of the examination and why city officials should be confident in the validity of the results.” But according to Legel, Dubois-Walton was “argumentative”and apparently had already made up her mind that the tests were “‘discriminatory.’” Again according to Legel, “[a] theme” of the meeting was “the political and racial overtones of what was going on in the City.” “Legel came away from the January 13, 2004 meeting with the impression that defendants were already leaning toward discarding the examination results.”

On January 22, 2004, the Civil Service Board (CSB orBoard) convened its first public meeting. Almost immediately, Rev. Kimber began to exert political pressure on the CSB. He began a loud, minutes-long outburst that required the CSB Chairman to shout him down and hold him out of order three times. Reverend Kimber protested the public meeting, arguing that he and the other fire commissioners should first be allowed to meet with the CSB in private.

Four days after the CSB’s first meeting, Mayor DeStefano’s executive aide sent an e-mail to Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Ude. The message clearly indicated that the Mayor had made up his mind to oppose certification of the test results but nevertheless wanted to conceal that fact from the public:
“I wanted to make sure we are all on the same pagefor this meeting tomorrow. . . . [L]et’s remember, that these folks are not against certification yet. So we can’t go in and tell them that is our position; we have to deliberate and arrive there as the fairest and most cogent outcome.”
On February 5, 2004, the CSB convened its second public meeting. Reverend Kimber again testified and threatened the CSB with political recriminations if they voted to certify the test results:
“I look at this [Board] tonight. I look at three whites
and one Hispanic and no blacks. . . . I would hope that you would not put yourself in this type of position, a political ramification that may come back upon you as
you sit on this [Board] and decide the future of a department and the future of those who are being promoted.
One of the CSB members “t[ook] great offense” because he believed that Rev. Kimber “consider[ed] [him] a bigot because [his] face is white.” The offended CSB member eventually voted not to certify the test results.

One of Rev. Kimber’s “friends and allies,” Lieutenant Gary Tinney, also exacerbated racial tensions before the CSB. After some firefighters applauded in support of certifying the test results, “Lt. Tinney exclaimed, ‘Listen to the Klansmen behind us.’” Id., at 225a. Tinney also has strong ties to the Mayor’s office. After learning that he had not scored well enough on the captain’s exam to earn a promotion, Tinney called Dubois-Walton and arranged a meeting in her office. Tinney alleged that the white firefighters had cheated on their exams — an accusation that Dubois-Walton conveyed to the Board without first conducting an investigation into its veracity. The allegation turned out to be baseless.

Dubois-Walton never retracted the cheating allegation, but she and other executive officials testified several times before the CSB. In accordance with directions from the Mayor’s office to make the CSB meetings appear deliberative, executive officials remained publicly uncommitted about certification — while simultaneously “work[ing] as a team” behind closed doors with the secretary of the CSB to devise a political message that would convince the CSB to vote against certification. At the public CSB meeting on March 11, 2004, for example, Corporation Counsel Ude bristled at one board member’s suggestion that City officials were recommending against certifying the test results. . . . But within days of making that public statement, Ude privately told other members of the Mayor’s team “the ONLY way we get to adecision not to certify is” to focus on something other than “a big discussion re: adverse impact” law.

As part of its effort to deflect attention from the specifics of the test, the City relied heavily on the testimony of Dr.Christopher Hornick, who is one of Chad Legel’s competitors in the test-development business. Hornick never “stud[ied] the test [that Legel developed] at length or in detail,” but Hornick did review and rely upon literature sent to him by Burgett to criticize Legel’s test. For example, Hornick “noted in the literature that [Burgett] sent that the test was not customized to the New Haven Fire Department.” The Chairman of the CSB immediately corrected Hornick. . . . Hornick also relied on newspaper accounts — again, sent to him by Burgett — pertaining to the controversy surrounding the certification decision. Although Hornick again admitted that he had no knowledge about the actual test that Legel had developed and that the City had administered, the City repeatedly relied upon Hornick as a testing “guru” and, in the CSB Chairman’s words, “the City ke[pt]quoting him as a person that we should rely upon more than anybody else [to conclude that there] is a better way — a better mousetrap.” Dubois-Walton later admitted that the City rewarded Hornick for his testimony by hiring him to develop and administer an alternative test.

At some point prior to the CSB’s public meeting on March 18, 2004, the Mayor decided to use his executive authority to disregard the test results — even if the CSB ultimately voted to certify them. Accordingly, on the evening of March 17th, Dubois-Walton sent an e-mail to the Mayor, the Mayor’s executive assistant, Burgett, and attorney Ude, attaching two alternative press releases. The first would be issued if the CSB voted not to certify the test results; the second would be issued (and would explain the Mayor’s invocationof his executive authority) if the CSB voted to certify the test results. Half an hour after Dubois-Walton circulated the alternative drafts, Burgett replied: “[W]ell, that seems to say it all. Let’s hope draft #2 hits the shredder tomorrow nite.”

Soon after the CSB voted against certification, Mayor DeStefano appeared at a dinner event and “took credit for the scu[tt]ling of the examination results.”

Those are some ugly facts indeed, but are hardly unique. To the contrary, this fact pattern is often seen with the race baiting crowd, from Al Sharpton, to Jeremiah Wright to Jesse Jackson, etc. They have suffered a significant blow as a result of Ricci. They only bad thing about this decision is that it was a 5-4 split. Should we lose any of the conservative justices, instead of equal protection of the laws, we will have reverse discrimination ensconced as Constitutional law. God please save the Court . . . at least through 2012.

Supreme Court's Ricci Decision - Half A Loaf (Updated)

2009-06-29T11:36:00.007-04:00

I just scanned the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStafano, holding 5-4 for the firefighters. That was the case brought by 11 New Haven Connecticut firefighters who had all achieved top scores on a promotion test. The City threw out the test results because no blacks were among their number. The firefighters argued that this act was unlawful under Title VII and that it was unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the Court's decision was limited in scope. Instead of deciding the penultimate issue - that the Equal Protection clause means that all discrimination, including reverse discrimination, is unlawful - the Supreme Court opted to limit its holding to Title VII. The decision changes the law of Title VII disparite impact claims - i.e., claims established based on a purely statitstical analysis of whether a hiring criteria resulted in too few of whatever minority or gender were hired as a result. If my initial read is correct, the holdings effect is ultimately to lessen the evidentiary value of such statistical claims as proof of racism.

While the outcome of the case is good, and it certainly points in the direction of an ultimate holding that the Equal Protection clause means what it says, the fact is that four liberal justices would have held otherwise. We are but one activist justice away from an Obama Supreme Court given the racially tinged green light to reverse racism.

Much more on this after I have a chance to pull it apart.

Update: Heh. I missed this. Johnathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy points out that Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, had a terse rebuke of the "empathy standard":

There's also some interesting language at the close of Justice Alito's concurrence (joined by Justices Thomas and Scalia) that I read as a subtle rebuke to Judge Sotomayor and the Second Circuit panel (which expressed sympathy to the firefighters in its per curiam opinion), as well as a rejection of an "empathy" standard for judicial decision-making.
. . . The dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” Post, at 1, 39. But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.

Larwyn's Linx

2009-06-29T11:28:00.002-04:00

Doug Ross runs one of the most interesting blogs on the net. If you're not a regular visitor, you're missing out. Beyond straight blogging, he also does a daily round-up of links, Larwyn's Linx, that is always quite good, and he was kind enough to include one of my posts in the round-up. Do please pay him a visit.

Impeachment - Honduran Style; Obama Acts As To Be Expected

2009-06-28T21:55:00.009-04:00

Left wing Honduran President and Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya has been arrested by the military pursuant to a Court Order in a Constitutional crisis of his own making. The radical lefties - Chavez, Castro & the Obama administration - weigh in to support Zelaya.

President Zelya was, until today, in his second term as Honduran President. The Honduran Constitution provides a two term limit on the Presidency. Further, their Constitution provides a single method for amending the constitution - a 2/3rds vote of the legislative body in two consecutive regular annual sessions. Zelya had attempted to get around this by calling a country wide referendum. Honduras's highest Court ruled such a move illegal. Zelya continued ahead with the planned referendum, firing officials along the way who refused to take part in this extra-constitutional act. Accordingly, the Court ordered Zelya's arrest today and the military complied. At his own request, Zelya has been flown to Costa Rica. Fausta has the whole story.

This from the WSJ:

Honduras's Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as his successor until the end of Mr. Zelaya's term in January. Mr. Micheletti and others said they were the defenders, not opponents, of democratic rule.

"What was done here was a democratic act," Mr. Micheletti, who was sworn in as president Sunday afternoon, said to an ovation. "Our constitution continues to be relevant, our democracy continues to live."

It should be noted that Micheletti was also a member of Zelya's party. Although the Constitutional issue provided the impetus for this act by the Courts and military, underlying it was concern with the role of Venezuela's clown dictator, Hugo Chavez, in Honduran politics. The WSJ quotes retired Honduran Gen. Daniel López Carballo, who "justified the move against the president, telling CNN that if the military hadn't acted, Mr. Chávez would eventually be running Honduras by proxy." The WSJ further notes that this was "a common view Sunday."

All of the rabidly left wing governments are attacking this arrest and the installation of a new President. Chavez, for one, is threatening war. The Obama administration has, according to the WSJ, "called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn't recognize any other leader." And Sec. of State Clinton goes one further. This from the WP:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the action taken against Honduras' president should be condemned by everyone.

She says Honduras must embrace the principles of democracy and respect constitutional order. . . .

It certainly sounds like the Hondurans played by the Constitutional rule book. Yet the U.S. seems to want to favor the Chavista's unconstitutional acts. You know, honest to God, watching Obama foreign policy is like watching the Keystone Cops.