(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ...When I think about President Obama’s decision not to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline that would’ve created thousands (or tens of thousands) of jobs and ensured a low-cost source of energy from a staunch ally, I think that I must be dumb.
The media has been telling us for years how brilliant President Obama is, so I must be dumb. He couldn’t possibly be dumb, because Newsweek magazine told me I was dumb.
After all, this pipeline hasn’t been studied for the past three years. And President Obama didn’t want to come down with a decision until after the election because he didn’t want his decision tainted by election-year politics. And the route of the proposed pipeline is through a part of the country where we don’t have any pipelines now.
If only they’d applied for a loan guarantee from the federal government, then surely President Obama would’ve approved it. But they didn’t need a loan guarantee from the government because there are plenty of people in that pesky private sector who are perfectly willing to fund the thing because there’s money to be made. Only “green” technologies that leave the American taxpayer on the hook need federal loan guarantees.
As regular readers will know, I’m a “denier” when it comes to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmism. But even if you do pray five times a day to Al Gore’s mega-mansion in Tennessee, rejection of the pipeline makes things worse, not better. The oil Is going to be pumped out of the ground no matter what. Now, instead of traveling via pipeline to refineries in the Gulf Coast, the Canadians will build a pipeline westward and then put it on tankers headed to China. Ignore the inherently more dangerous oil tankers vs. pipelines argument for a moment and think about this: Which nation’s refineries are cleaner, more efficient and more Gaia-friendly?
If President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and his disdain for American jobs isn’t the number one campaign issue this fall, then the GOP is doing it wrong. (A too likely possibility.)
Perhaps the most distressing thing is the way this has played in the media. Predictably, the Obama administration complains that Republicans made him do it, but nowhere in their coverage of the he said/she said of this week’s announcement in the major media is that this pipeline has been studied for three years by multiple federal agencies. This is not new technology. This is not traversing an area of the U.S. where there are no pre-existing pipelines or where there haven’t been a plethora of environmental studies for other projects over the decades. We know the lay of the land. And three years isn’t enough?
Yet the media dutifully protects its preferred presidential candidate, portraying him as a victim of the mean Republicans while at the same time testifying to his brilliant political strategy.
And oil prices continue to rise and jobs continue to be scarce.
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...I wasn’t going to get into the whole SOPA/PIPA debate because you were supposed to change the flag on your Web site and only talk about the possibility of hollywood studios, recording companies and their over-bored lawyers shutting down Web sites without just cause, prior review, an opportunity to plead your case etc.
I’m too lazy to do all of that, so I figured you were getting enough of it at Google and Wikipedia.
Then the corrupt former senator from Countrywide who turned his years of government service into a cushy lobbying job as head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Chris Dodd, opened his trap.
It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.
It’s an abuse of power? For people and companies to voice their views on legislation pending before government? An abuse of power? I don’t think that term means what he thinks it means. If I shut down this site tomorrow, not many people would notice, but it would be an “abuse” of my power?
To quote Samuel L. Jackson: “What this situation requires is a whole lot more of you shutting the f— up.”
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...I must confess that I wasn’t going to touch the topic of this week’s ridiculous Newsweek cover story by the world’s most famous gay man to be obsessed with Sarah Palin’s vagina.
I also wasn’t too interested in the predictable “racism” debate that would spring up when some compared the picture of President Barack Obama to a beleaguered Jimmy Carter and “liver lips” became a racist slur.
What did interest me was this roundup of reactions from Politico.com:
The latest edition of Newsweek features the face of a pensive President Barack Obama along with the provocative headline: “Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?” — and that’s hit a little too close to home for conservative bloggers. [emphasis added]
Really? We’re angry because we’re dumb? And this was a news article?
I expect this sort of insulting slurs from Newsweek which some time ago (I think it was before it was sold for 1$) decided to jettison all pretense of journalistic objectivity and go full lefty. But I was under the impression that Politico was still carrying on the farce.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...When last I thought of Providence Journal columnist and National Council of Editorial Writers Civility Project head Froma Harrop, it was last summer and my opinion of her sincerity, self-awareness, civility and was that she was an odious individual who should be drummed out of polite society, but she’s lucky enough to work at a newspaper.
Then last week “The Daily Show” got around to the controversy which erupted on the right side of the blogosphere last year after Civility Project head Harrop called Tea Partiers “terrorists.”
I know the question you’re asking: “Is she playing dumb for the camera or is she this oblivious in real life?”
I’d like to think the answer is the former, but I’m afraid it’s the latter. Evidence: Harrop posts this on her blog and her comment is: “Sure, much of my careful reasoning ended up on the cutting-room floor, but it was fun.”
If you’re “in” on the joke, you don’t decry your “careful reasoning” (I’m not sure that term means what she thinks it means) being edited out of the video.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...I was unaware of this CNN segment because I don’t get up that early in the morning—or stay awake that late on the West Coast. Jon Stewart explains:
I can’t wait until someone they awaken at that hour has the wits and the cojones to say: “Ashleigh, when I rolled over you were gone. Thanks for last night. You were great. And yes, that friend of yours…what’s her name? Z-something? Yeah, have her join us next time…”
I’m at a loss here, who’s actually doing serious journalism nowadays?
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...For some reason, law professors tend to be a little more respected than their gun-for-hire brethren who will argue any position if the money is right. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe is a liberal, but he’s also a respected legal theorist.
And like your average run of the mill lawyer, he can be bought. In defense of President Obama’s recent “recess” appointments, Tribe wrote an OpEd for The New York Times which included some interesting legal theories.
In support of Obama, Tribe asserts that the president’s power to deem the Senate to be "in recess" and then make recess appointments "is clearly stated in the Constitution" and is further supported by "past practice."
What about when there was a Republican in the White House?
But against Bush, Tribe argued that "[t]he text, structure, purpose, function, and pre-1921 history of the Recess Appointments Clause all confirm . . . that the President may not make recess appointments during intra-session Senate breaks."
Obama:
In support of Obama, Tribe argues that intra-session recess appointments are especially justified when the Senate is deliberately "frustrat[ing] presidential appointments."
Bush:
But against Bush, he argued the opposite: recess appointments are all the more illegitimate when the nominee in question already had been the subject of Senate debate yet "failed to obtain enough votes to go forward under Senate rules."
Read the whole thing over at The Weekly Standard. Like the Times editorial page, Professor Tribe is partisan, not principled.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...The response to President Obama’s unconstitutional appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three individuals to the National Labor Relations Board has been predictable and disappointing. Politico.com’s Arena is a helpful account of the justifications of those on the political left for the act which seems to be little more than it’s OK because the Republicans are meanies and this is really important.
Curiously, one of the most clear-eyed analyses came from Mary Frances Berry, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who illegally tried to extend her term in the early months of George W. Bush’s term.
The recess appointments are great campaign strategy, aside from the need to fill the vacancies. The appointments may raise legal difficulties when actions the appointees take are challenged, and Democrats will be in a tizzy when the next Republican president decides to do the same thing.
Exactly. This is all about politics and the president’s re-election campaign and that’s the light in which those on the left have been praising the move. The Constitution, separation of powers and the Senate’s role in confirming presidential appointees grow the ever-increasing conglomeration beneath Obama’s bus.
The responses reminded me of an anecdote from Bernard Goldberg’s latest book “A Slobbering Love Affair.” In it Goldberg recounts a discussion he had with some students and their instructor at a journalism school who saw their jobs to make the world a better place. Goldberg’s response was along the lines of “a better world according to your values or mine?” That was met with silence.
Similarly, Obama’s unconstitutional gambit is OK because it’s for the greater good. They are the ultimate utilitarians. There is no law that can’t be ignored, no justification that can’t be advanced, no excuse that can’t be offered.
It may be good politics, but it’s a horrible way to run a government.
(2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5) Loading ...Don’t bother him with facts or figures.
In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California’s proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year.
Gov. Jerry Brown has said he will ask the Legislature in the coming months to issue the first batch of $9 billion in voter-approved bonds for a high-speed rail network that backers say will create jobs, help the environment and transform the state’s economy.
But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public’s interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."
The state budget’s in a huge hole and every day you hear about more cuts to schools and other services and yet we must spend $100 billion on a bullet train no one’s going to ride.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...Today, President Barack Obama checked off another first for an American president: He made a recess appointment when Congress wasn’t in recess. It may sound hard to do, but after healing the planet and stopping the rise of the seas, this one was easy.
While the Constitution gives the president the authority to fill executive branch vacancies when the Senate is in recess, a Justice Department opinion in 1993 implied that a recess of more than three days was needed before the president could exercise the power, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. No such appointments have been made during recesses of fewer than 10 days over the last 20 years, the service said in a December report.
But there is precedent for appointments made during recesses of fewer than three days — President Theodore Roosevelt made more than 160 recess appointments during a Senate break of less than a day in 1903.
Obama decided to push the legal envelope to get Cordray in place.
If you or I were to “push the legal envelope” it’d be called “breaking the law” and we’d find ourselves making license plates.
Cue the “if Bush had done it” musings. Here’s the Heritage Foundation’s take on it. Hilariously, the Obama Department of Justice was against this before they were for it.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?
MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
A couple of other notes:
First, if these are the new rules (and Sen. Harry Reid said he’s all for it), then a Republican president will likely do this too—even if it’s just for the job of ambassador to the Maldives—just for the pure joy of watching the Democrats go into contortions. Once upon a time Democrats understood that there were certain lines you didn’t cross because one day the tables might be turned and you didn’t want be on the other side. That period is long past.
Second, if you thought it was amusing how the New York Times editorial page was for filibusters when Republicans were president, but how they were an affront to democracy when a Democrat was president, then there’s another one sure to be on the way. Predictably, because the Times likes Obama, they like this move. They refer to it as a recess appointment, but never note that the Senate is not in recess. Then there’s this:
Congressional Republicans are calling the appointment “unprecedented” and “illegitimate” — that is rich given that they are determined to use any and all tactics to thwart the bureau and the Dodd-Frank reform law that created it.
And why wouldn’t they? Is there any tactic beyond the pale whose end goal is a liberal aim? Nope, it’s only when Republicans use the legal methods at their disposal that the Times editorialists complain.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...So, the past couple of weeks is what vacation looks like. You get what you pay for. A belated thanks to all of you who purchase items from Amazon via the links here, it doesn’t cost you any extra, and a few extra bucks go into my pocket.
First, a quick reminder about what President Obama actually promised when he was running for President back in 2008.
Barack Obama breaks a promise (or two)
Boy, was the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrong! Increase the deficit by $200 billion—that would’ve been the very model of restraint! And he promises to make sure “as president” that his rescue package will be structured responsibly—then he outsourced it completely to Congress!
And when Obama’s complaining about “the rich,” remember that he’s one of them.
Hoystory is syndicated via Newstex
Advertising Pt. Deux
