Libertarian Leanings

College-tainted oppression liberators need not apply

A must-read article from the Los Angeles Times describes the American Indian Public Charter school. 

'Not many schools in California recruit teachers with language like this: "We are looking for hard working people who believe in free market capitalism. . . . Multicultural specialists, ultra liberal zealots and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply." '

Closing Guantanamo

While there are a myriad of problems that Obama will need to overcome if he is to close Guantanamo, as David Rivkin and Lee Casey suggest, there is no offsetting benefit.

'At least since the 1970s, "progressive" international activists have sought to level the playing field between nation states (especially the U.S. and Israel) and nonstate actors such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas. Although international humanitarian law is supposed to apply neutrally to all belligerents, international opinion now gives nonstate actors far more leeway to ignore fundamental norms such as the rule against deliberately targeting civilians. The underlying implication is that terrorist tactics, however regrettable, are justified as the only means of achieving laudable goals like national liberation.

This mindset will not change if Guantanamo closes.'

It is from that progressive activist mindset that Obama formulated a political philosophy.  He is an activist at heart.  It is to that progressive activist mindset that Obama panders with his repeated promises to close Guantanamo.  But, he has been slowly coming to realize as Commander-in-Chief responsible for national security, his job is not to level the playing field.  His awakening in this regard can be observed in his retention of so many Bush administration antiterror policies, after roundly condemning them, of course.

You get the picture...

Today's Washington Post features an article on the American cultural impact on Iraq.  The money quote:

"I'm not defending their presence, but that's not all it was. We have to be honest," Kasim told his friend. "We paid a very high price, but it was the price of freedom."

How the Obama Tax Plan "Helps" America

Speaking of his stimulus package, Barack Obama once claimed that the measure of its success will be the 4 million jobs he will create or save.  Never mind that we have no way of counting jobs saved.  And never mind that effects of the stimulus, if there ever are any, are likely to dampened by higher corporate taxes.  Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute explains the real impact of Obama's tax policies.

What's a Lefty to Think...

One thing the left does not believe in is the rule of law.  For all his talk about it, President Obama doesn't believe in it, either.  His first nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, confirms this.  Here is what she said during her 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

It goes without saying, that if similar words were ever to come from the mouth of a white male Supreme Court nominee his rejection would take less than a heartbeat.  It wouldn't matter what life he lived.  But to the point of the Judge's statement, for legal decisions to come out differently based on ethnic background, they must be based on factors other than what the law says. 

Judge Sotomayor and Barack Obama are of the same mind on this.  Both are impatient with the law and above it.  Judge Sotomayor has said the court is one place where policy is made.  This was at a panel discussion at Duke University. 

'She made the comment in response to a question from a student on the differences between working at the federal appeals court as opposed to the district court. The New York judge said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek appeals court clerkships.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."'

A wink and a nod?  While denying that judges are supposed to make the law she seemed to concede that, well yes in practice that's what happens.  Which is precisely the kind of talk that will endear both Sotomayor and Obama to their lefty supporters.  It was apparently well received at Duke.  This reliance on empathy is what makes Sotomayor and Obama the right sort of people, people in whom the left can put their trust, even when they can't.

Take, for instance, when Obama campaigned for his presidency.  He did it with promises to end the war in Iraq and get the troops out of there, but once elected he backed away from the idea of a precipitous withdrawal.  He had promised an immediate end to military tribunals for trying terrorists captured in battle and signed an order to that effect.  But he has recently reinstated them.  In fact, Bush administration policies are the bulk of his strategy for fighting the War on Terror.  Here is Charles Krauthammer's take on it. 

'If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back.

Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he's doing in deed. As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech yesterday claiming to have undone Bush's moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.'

Still, they have faith on the left.  It makes no difference what Obama actually does.  On the left they believe in the man.  Or, they believe in the man they believe him to be.  And the man says empathy wins out over cold legalities.  It is enough.  They believe.  Actions matter little, laws perhaps even less.  It's all about the man.  Sound judges of character they are, over there on the left.  They think.

Cheney vs. Obama

I didn't watch President Obama's address at the National Archives last night.  He said that the U.S. went off course in the war on terror.  He argued against the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods and in favor of closing Guantanamo, claiming those things did more harm than good.  Personally, I don't agree with him.

'The president unblinkingly, methodically confronted a string of national-security decisions that have drawn criticism from the political left or right. He called the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay an inherited "mess" that "has weakened American national security" by providing a rallying cry for enemies.'

Actually I think it's been a rallying cry for Democrats more than anybody else. 

Meanwhile former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at the American Enterprise Institute.

"When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support," Cheney said. "And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer."

Cheney continued: “Though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. ... What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.”

"Watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said. "To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy.

It's interesting to note that favorable opinions of Cheney are on the rise.  I hope he stays out front on this.

(Updated at 8:07am.)

New Opposition to Chrysler's Restructure Plan

This morning's Wall Street Journal reports that there is new opposition to Chrysler's restructuring plan.

'The funds are unhappy the government put together a restructuring that will give secured creditors only 29 cents on the dollar. Chrysler unsecured creditors ranking below them -- namely the United Auto Workers union -- will recover more.

Judge Arthur Gonzalez of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan on Wednesday denied lenders' request to delay the coming sale of Chrysler assets to a new company backed by the U.S. But the funds did secure a separate hearing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan next week, where they plan to challenge the constitutionality and legality of government involvement in Chrysler.'

It appeared that Barack Obama had beaten back the senior creditors and gotten them all to back down, to accept less so that the United Auto Workers could get more.  Last month Obama demonized the speculators.

'Obama said that all of Chrysler's major stakeholders had made sacrifices -- the United Auto Workers had agreed to major cuts, Chrysler's management had been "positive and constructive," and Chrysler's biggest lenders, led by J. P. Morgan, "had agreed to reduce their debt to less than one-third of their obligations."

But then he dropped the hammer:

But while many stakeholders made sacrifices, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds that hoped to hold out for a taxpayer-funded bailout.

I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees, management and suppliers.

I don't with stand with those who held out when everybody else made sacrifices.

The holdouts, Obama also said, were "a small group of speculators" who are "endangering Chrysler's future.'

Lefty pundits agreed.

'But the banksters are eagerly, shamelessly, and openly harvesting their pound of flesh from financially stressed average taxpayers, and setting off a chain reaction in the auto industry which has the very real risk of creating even larger scale unemployment than the economy already faces. It's reckless, utterly irresponsible, over-the-top greed.'

And who are the utterly irresponsible, the over-the-top greedy?

'The opposition was led by the Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, the Indiana State Police Pension Trust and the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund, which together own about $42.5 million of Chrysler's $6.9 billion in secured debt, according to the funds' lawyer.'

[...]

"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock said Wednesday.

Mr. Mourdock, a Republican who oversees one of the funds and is trustee for another, said Indiana's state funds "suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."

In court filings Tuesday night, the Indiana funds alleged the Treasury Department's actions at Chrysler were unconstitutional, violating Fifth Amendment prohibition against government seizure of private property. The funds also alleged "misuse" of the government's authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, noting that TARP gave Treasury authority to aid financial institutions, and not industrial companies such as Chrysler.'

According to the Journal the Indiana funds are willing to take 50 cents on the dollar, so I'd be willing to bet the Obama administration will settle rather than risk a successful challenge to their taking.

Guantanamo makes us less safe?

Oh really?  Well, I know it's the conventional liberal Democrat wisdom, but is it true?  The charge briefly surfaced during a press conference with Senate Democrat Harry Reid in which he was asked why he and his party colleagues had stripped money needed for closing Guantanamo from an appropriations bill.

'REID: Change course on what?

QUESTION: On funding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

REID: Well, the decision to close Guantanamo was a right one.

I agree with President Bush. I agree with John McCain. I agree with Barack Obama . Guantanamo makes us less save.

However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

REID: No, I really don’t think so.

We have -- of course, coming in July, there’s going to be a study that will be put forth on detainees -- what should be done in that regard. The president knew that was coming.

REID: I think this is a very -- the thing that we did is waiting for the plan from the president. He didn’t hold us out to dry at all -- hang us out to dry, not at all.

QUESTION: If the United States -- if the United States thinks that these people should be held, why shouldn’t they be held in the United States? Why shouldn’t the U.S. take those risks, the attendant risk of holding them, since it’s the one that says they should be held?

REID: I think there’s a general feeling, as I’ve already said, that the American people, and certainly the Senate, overwhelmingly doesn’t want terrorists to be released in the United States. And I think we’re going to stick with that.

QUESTION: What about in imprisoned in the United States?

REID: If you’re...

(CROSSTALK)

REID: If people are -- if terrorists are released in the United States, part of what we don’t want is them be put in prisons in the United States. We don’t want them around the United States.'

OK.  We're less safe because of Guantanamo, but we'll be more "less safe" releasing the terrorists, or even putting them in U.S. prisons.

'REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? I mean (OFF-MIKE)'

Yes, please clarify.  If Guantanamo is making us less safe, presumably by inflaming anti-American passions, aren't these Democrats fanning the flames by keeping it front and center as a political issue?  And, it's for the sole purpose of smearing the Bush administration.  Nothing more.  

Unfortunately for the Democrats, reality has once again reared its ugly head.  Just as Obama found he needed to reverse his previous rejection of the Bush administration military tribunals, Democrats have discovered that closing Guantanamo is not such a great idea after all.  The rationale for not doing what they promised to do can get pretty entertainin -- cant' put them in prison unless you release them?  Uh, OK.

Well I guess it can get to be pretty overwhelming. 

'QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) mean that Guantanamo will remain open indefinitely (OFF-MIKE)

REID: I repeat: I agree with McCain, Bush and Obama: Guantanamo should be closed because it makes us less safe and it will be closed. We’re waiting for a plan from the president and (OFF- MIKE).

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

REID: Can’t say anything but what I’ve said, and re-said it three times. Can’t say it four times. That’s how I feel.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) because if a detainee -- if a detainee is adjudicated not to be a terrorist, could that detainee then enter the United States?

REID: Why don’t we wait for a plan from the president? All we’re doing now is nitpicking on language that I have given you. I’ve been as clear as I can. I think I’ve been pretty clear.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) what have you heard about (OFF-MIKE)

REID: What you want me to be is not very clear.

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say -- would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

REID: I think I’ve had about enough of this.'

Like Nancy Pelosi's idiotic charges of torture, it turns back on them.  In the end they vindicate Bush administration policies.  But what nasty, stupid people we have in charge of our House and Senate with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid.  With that pair our national interest wins out over their political advantage only by accident.  It's nothing new, though.

(Updated at 1:23pm)

Cheney vs. Pelosi

It's actually pretty obvious when you compare the two of them.  As Steve Huntley writes in the Chicago Sun Times, when Dick Cheney defends the interrogation methods that were used back in 2002 he is arguing from conviction, and you can see that when you listen to him.  You don't get that sense at all when you listen to Nancy Pelosi's moral posturing.  This paragraph captures her predicament.

'Several journalists underwent waterboarding and declared it to be torture. No one has ever had to have his fingernails pulled out to deem that ordeal to be torture. That journalists had to experiment with waterboarding suggests it might fall into a gray area.'

Gray area, hell!  If journalists could experiment with waterboarding it's not torture.  Pelosi launched a political attack that went awry, and now she's caught up in it herself.  So sad.

Uh...