This just in!

June 30, 2010

My (somewhat) tangential reply to a friend’s brief email:______

You know. I’ve never been to Oklahoma, but I kind of feel the need to go there and spend some money to show my respect;

Coburn Calls Kagan ‘Ignorant’ on Commerce Clause, Says Filibuster Possible [Daniel Foster]

After a line of questioning on the Commerce Clause in which Elena Kagan appeared to embrace near limitless Congressional authority to regulate economic activity, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) had strong words for ABC News, calling Kagan “ignorant” of relevant constitutional principles:

“I think the thing that’s very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she’s ignorant of the Constitution’s limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.

“And her reliance was that, ‘Well, here’s the precedent that’s been set, and we can’t go back to original intent,’ which comes back to another thing that she said earlier in the hearing — is that precedent trumps original intent. And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intent is worrisome, in my opinion.”

Coburn also said that Kagan could be filibustered:

“I wouldn’t rule out a filibuster,” he said. “Look, my two main concerns are …: We’re in trouble as a nation, and one of the reasons we’re in trouble is the expansion of the federal government into areas that our Founders never thought we should be in. And we have a nominee to the Supreme Court that is fully embracing that and with no limits in terms of the Commerce Clause. So to me, that’s very concerning. The second point I would make, again, is that she believes precedent trumps original intent. And she defended that. And so that — both those things are very concerning — should be very concerning to the American people.”

Long live the 10th Amendment!

Email from friend:

From the NY Times:
Donald Heathfield, accused of spying for the Russians, blended in at the Kennedy School of Government.

Really? Who’d have thunk it?




June 29, 2010

Last Tuesday a friend mentioned some folks theorize the economy cratered in 1937 and 1938 because Roosevelt caused uncertainty by trashing the private sector.

This editorial explores that point-of-view in regards to our present circumstance.



June 23, 2010

In case anyone thought I was making Obama’s position up (from an offline conversation):

“Obama and Biden’s plan will help create lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society — in and out of government — to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.”

If he approached domestic policy in the same manner, then he would halt all entitlement payments to encourage people to work.


My reply:

If you believe an individual without any executive experience can be an effective President, then you might just as well believe that it doesn’t matter who runs the war in Afghanistan.

From Obama’s perspective, it very well be that it’s the deadline that’s going to do all the work. He put a withdrawal date out there. That date is going to motivate the Afghans to get their act together in time to assume the responsibilities that we’re going to dump on them.

Well, that, and the public tongue-lashing Obama delivered to Karzai the other day. You know; tough love and all that.

This is the point-of-view he held in relation to Iraq. It was a threatened ending of the US mission that really did the work of getting the Iraqis to cooperate and face up to their responsibilities.

Now let’s take that point-of-view and apply it to domestic politics. By this logic the US should establish a date by which health insurance (or hell, health care, in general) would be unavailable. Then everyone would be motivated to stay well.

Problem solved.

Another friend’s email

I agree. I wonder — Is the bench strength of our top commanders that thin (where Petraeus is the only option), or is the Petraeus appointment a way of maintaining momentum on the learning curve in Afghanistan so that the President has a better chance to hit his target troop withdrawal dates?


A Friends email:

I am less troubled by the President’s decision to fire Gen. McChrystal than the apparent decision to replace him with Gen. Petraeus. I do not see how Gen. Petraeus can be expected to run all of CentCom while directly supervising Afghanistan. If he is not doing both, then it seems he was just demoted, which would be unpopular as well as unjust, and therefore unwise.

If somehow Gen Petraeus does both successfully, I say five stars would not be too many.

Still, if you ask me the Truthers are nuttier than the Birthers.


. . .I said his approach to government would lead the US down the road toward Banana Republic.

There’s at least one other person who sees this as well.

The Left is beginning to see this too, but from precisely the opposite point-of-view.

I like the comparison (Jon Stewart’s above) to Frodo ultimately deciding to take The Ring for himself. I wonder if he has an idea who Gollum is?

But either way, when it comes to Power, which I define as the ability to get people to do what you want without their consent, Obama never says no.

So, I’m firmer in my point-of-view than I was two years ago.


Okay, so now the government (Departments of HHS, Labor, and IRS) concludes the majority of people will have to switch their coverage by 2013.

A couple of questions:

Are Clinton and Obama more comfortable with outright lies than most Presidents have been?

If so, does the lack of fathers in their lives have anything to do with it?

Only Obama could have accomplished anything so shocking. He may truly be The One.

That’s a first.

He’s hanging in there at minus 17 on Rasmussen.