When the office of President was created in 1787, its primary function was to be the face and voice of the nation to the world. Above all else, the executive branch represents Americans in the diplomatic and, when necessary, martial contexts to friend and foe alike. Given the foregoing, what exactly are we to make of Obama aligning himself with Mexican President Felipe Calderon against citizens of the United States?
Mexican President Felipe Calderón, arriving at the White House for a state visit, wasted no time today criticizing Arizona’s new immigration law as unfair and discriminatory.
The law makes it illegal to be in the United States without permission, and requires police to demand documentation from anyone suspected of doing so [ed. - Wrong, on both assertions]. Such a law, Calderón asserted at a Rose Garden news conference with President Barack Obama, will subject Mexican citizens to discrimination and was created so that people who “work and provide things to this nation will be treated as criminals.”
Obama also condemned the law, and left open the possibility he’ll try to block it.
Leaving aside the editorializing about Arizona’s law in this “reporting,” it’s a bit puzzling as to what Calderon is even complaining about. First of all, his country has far more draconian laws regarding illegal immigration than the U.S. Secondly, there is a real question regarding whom he thinks he represents. As Allahpundit noted:
I’m not sure which Mexicans Calderon’s presuming to speak for. If he means Mexican citizens who are in the country legally, fair enough. If he means illegals, i.e. if he’s actually complaining on behalf of people who aren’t even supposed to be here, his balls are even brassier than I thought. And if he means Americans of Mexican descent, he’s belittling Obama’s own authority. Last time I checked, if anyone’s going to do any diplomatic conveying on behalf of U.S. citizens, it’s the president of the United States.
What’s really sad is that, of the two heads of state, Calderon is the only one actually looking for the interests of his own people. For his part, Obama stood firmly against his own citizens and with the interests of another country:
President Obama left little doubt Wednesday that his administration will challenge Arizona’s divisive new immigration law, saying the measure “has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion.”
After a private meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the Oval Office, Obama denounced the state law cracking down on illegal immigration, and he also sent a clear message that a review led by Justice Department lawyers is likely to culminate in legal action.
Obama said that “a fair reading of the language of the statute” suggests those who appear to be illegal immigrants could be “harassed or arrested.”
Er, wouldn’t a “fair reading” involve, y’know, actually reading the law? To date, no one in the Obama Administration has bothered to do so, although they have all been quite ready to castigate it anyway.
The truly disturbing thing, however, is the sheer abdication loyalty (not to mention responsibility) on the part of our chief executive, by taking a hostile stance against those whom Obama (nominally) represents, all in support of the interests of the foreign nation most responsible for our border mess in the first place. It’s almost as if Obama thinks he represents the rest of the world in its dealing with Americans.
Perhaps, when Obama finally gets around to reading SB-1070, someone should slip a copy of the Constitution in there as well. He seems to have forgotten about … if he ever cared in the first place.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Who would have ever thought to see the day the US was lectured on its economic policy by the Red Chinese? Even worse, who would have believed the Chinese would be right?
Sovereign debt troubles in Europe underscore how important it is for the United States to control its own borrowing as its indebtedness reaches concerning levels, a senior Chinese official said on Thursday.
With China facing criticism for holding its currency in a de facto dollar peg, assistant finance minister Zhu Guangyao shifted attention to Beijing’s own worries about U.S. policies, especially its soaring deficit, ahead of high-level bilateral meetings next week.
China will look to coordinate its economic policies with the United States as a buffer against the turbulence and would also like the G20 group of nations to play a role in strengthening the global response, Zhu said.
But the United States needs to take a hard look at its own fiscal situation in the light of what has happened in Europe, he said.
We continue to hear from those like Paul Krugman that debt is fine in conditions like this, that in fact, we haven’t spent enough. Obviously that’s not worked out too well, has it? And, as we’re seeing in Europe, especially Greece, when debt reaches a certain proportion of GDP, it becomes unsustainable. Guess what China, a country holding almost a trillion dollars of our debt, is worried about?
“We hope that the U.S. deficit will fall as a proportion of GDP as the economy recovers and reach a sustainable level,” Zhu said.
Well, Mr. Zhu, if you look at the projected 10 years of budgeting the Obama administration has forecast, you’re not going to get a very warm and fuzzy feeling about that.
But here’s a promise – you will get all the lip service to that end that you can stomach. And, as most Americans are learning, this administration considers talking about something akin to doing something about it. In the meantime watch closely as they continue to spend us into oblivion and eventually erode the value of the treasury holdings you hold.
All the while they’ll continue to say to anyone who will listen – “we’ve got to address this debt, it is unsustainable” all as trillions in borrowed money continue to go flying out the door.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
If you said jobless claims, you’d be right:
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 471,000 in the week ended May 15, the highest level since the week ended April 10, the Labor Department said.
Analysts polled by Reuters had expected claims to fall to 440,000 from the previously reported 444,000, which was revised marginally up to 446,000 in Thursday’s report.
The four-week moving average of new claims, which is considered a better measure of underlying labor market trends, rose 3,000 to 453,500.
To give you an idea of what the nation is facing in unemployment, a little chart to make the point:
Remember, President Obama continues to claim that without his pork laden “stimulus” package (something the “party of ‘no'” voted against as a bloc), things would have been much, much worse. Really?
And also remember that when he touted that “stimulus” he promised it would halt the unemployment slide at 8%. I assume the GOP sees his strategy, given the numbers and the promised results as an effective counter to his claim the “stimulus” worked.
On a non-political note, this week’s claims simply point out that we still have a long way to go before we begin to see a steady improvement in the unemployment rate. And, with the European crisis festering, we may see it get worse again, before it gets better.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Arlen Specter can now be the mean old man who lives on the corner. Every neighborhood needs one. #
Sestak is now at 51%. You want to hear a "bitter clinger" from Pennsylvania? Watch Arlen Specter's concession speech. #
Current PA-12 Results: Critz (D) – 59.2%, Burns (R) 38.6%. So far…not good. #
Well, I've got to stop twittering for a bit. I've got to take a dog for a walk. And, no, that's not a figure of speech. #
Maybe it's too early to call either race in PA. #
PA House 12: 82 votes counted, Critz (D) leads 86%-0%. Is a disaster looming for Burns!? #
Very first election returns from PA: With 114 votes counted, Sestak leads Specter, 56%-44%. #
I wonder how the election in PA will be affected by the bad weather, and resulting low turnout. #
If you believe that what was wrong with our intel community prior to 9/11 was fixed by Congress afterward, you’re dwelling in a false sense of security.
The Obama administration tried to sell the public that the Christmas day bomber’s attempt was nothing like 9/11 because it was a failure “to understand intelligence” not a failure to “collect and understand it”.
Wrongo, says the Senate Intelligence committee. The National Counterterrorism Center, which was created by Congress and tasked with being the primary agency for the analysis of terrorism intelligence failed to do that job:
“NCTC personnel had the responsibility and the capability to connect the key reporting with the other relevant reporting,” the congressional summary said. “The NCTC was not adequately organized and did not have resources appropriately allocated to fulfill its missions.”
The NCTC is the government’s clearinghouse for terrorism information and is the only government agency that can access all intelligence and law enforcement information.
Lawmakers found that the NCTC was not organized to be the sole agency in charge or piecing together terrorism threats.
“Some of the systemic errors this review identified also were cited as failures prior to 9/11,” Republican Sens. Richard Burr and Saxby Chambliss wrote in an addendum to the report.
What do you do with a government that doesn’t follow its own recommendations for 8 years? Where was the oversight? Where was the leadership? And this isn’t just the Obama administration’s failure either.
One thing you have to keep in mind when thinking about the Christmas day bomber and the Times Square bomber.
Neither plot was “foiled” by good intelligence work.
Both, instead, FAILED.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
In the wake of the Richard Blumenthal nonsense, Larry Pressler, former Republican senator from SD and a Vietnam vet writes a pretty good indictment of the deferment generation Blumenthal represents and how their thinking about war in general evolved from the time they’d have had to participate to the time when others would have to do so. Unsurprisingly they’re more for the latter than they were for the former.
But there was a line in his article that again perpetuates a myth about the Vietnam war:
The problem is that for every person who won a deferment or a spot in a special National Guard unit, someone poorer or less educated, and usually African-American, had to serve.
Let me say this very clearly: NOT TRUE.
Goodness knows there have been a number of studies that address this canard. And their findings do not support the contention. Here are the raw numbers:
Of all the men and women who served in Vietnam, 275,000, or 10.6%, were black. The remaining 88.4% were Caucasian. At the time of the Vietnam War, Blacks represented approximately 12.5% of the total U.S. population.
There is a persistent myth that Blacks were used as “cannon fodder”, being assigned to infantry units where they were forced to “walk point”. This is not supported by the casualty data which indicates that 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1%, or 5,711, were Black. Again, this number is approximately the same as the percentage of Blacks in the general population during the war.
Another study produced the same result:
Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book “All That We Can Be,” said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam “and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia – a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war.”
So put that one to bed if you hear it repeated. It’s simply not true. Nor is the “poor and less educated”. Perhaps in in the context that Pressler uses it (he’s talking about the “elite” in Ivy League schools at the time) it has some legs, but in the context of the force as a whole it doesn’t hold up:
Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.
Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.
Certainly the military was strained then and those of us who served at that time remember the Cat IVs (if I’m not mistaken 100,000 were admitted and didn’t last long – they simply weren’t equipped to handle the military), but in general, it was, as General Barry McCaffrey notes above, the best educated force we’d ever fielded at the time.
There are a few other myths I’d like to see go away and now seems the perfect time address them with some statistics:
91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served.
74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome.
There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study).
Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison than the general population – only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes.
97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam.
85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life.
Vietnam veterans’ personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.
Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group.
87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem.
Here’s one of my favorite myths – most Vietnam veterans were drafted:
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Many men volunteered for the draft so even some of the draftees were actually volunteers.
Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers.
And, of course, you’ve heard the one about the average age of the infantryman in Vietnam being 19? It wasn’t. It was 22.55 years old.
While I certainly agree with Pressler’s greater point about those like Blumenthal, he doesn’t need to use myths in place of facts to do so. The attitude toward Vietnam vets has changed significantly and for the better over the years. However, these myths, perpetuated by the anti-war crowd and the media have persisted and cast a shadow on their service. Time to put them to rest once and for all.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Oh, certainly there was something in there for the Democrats – perhaps a bit of false hope – but Rand Paul defeated the establishment GOP pick handily (hello, Bob Bennett? Charlie Crist?) in Kentucky sending the real message of the night.
Arlen Specter’s defeat was neither a surprise or a disappointment. Who wants a turncoat Republican under a Democratic flag of convenience, there only because it was clear he couldn’t win a Republican primary (see above and join him with Bennett, Crist and Trey Grayson)? Joe Sestak, a former admiral and Democratic congressman, was a much more attractive Democratic candidate.
Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent Arkansas Democratic Senator, was also the establishment Democratic pick and supported by both President Obama and Bill Clinton. She only managed a run-off with Democratic Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.
The seat held by John Murtha went to one of his aides. I’m not at all surprised by that. I’d have loved the irony of a Republican win, but it wasn’t likely according to the polls. Murtha was a king of pork. No one will argue he didn’t lard it on his district. And, in times of economic hardship, voters may have chosen in the hope his former aide will continue that, rather than taking a chance with a Republican. Some analysts see the election as a bellwether for the fall. I’m not seeing that at all, and there’s always the danger for the Donks of giving it more importance than it deserves.
So, what if any messages were sent? For the GOP, the Tea Party effect is real. The message is clear – smaller, less costly and less intrusive government (lower taxes, much less spending). There are enough establishment candidates languishing by the wayside at the moment for even the slowest among the party to begin to understand that. There is certainly an element of anti-incumbency evident there.
For the Democrats, I’d say the message is mixed. It’s hard to say with Lincoln hanging on, a Republican turncoat turned out by a Congressional Democrat and holding on to a Congressional open seat means anti-incumbent fever is sweeping the ranks of the Democratic base. I believe there is an anti-incumbent fever, but it resides mostly among the right and independents.
We’ll know more as we see how the vote breaks down in the key races. I’m very interested to see what independents did. But for right now, the establishment GOP better be responding to their wakeup call and tweaking their message – and perhaps their candidates – for this fall.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
We’ll start with Sean Trende at RCP who wonders if 2010 is Anti-incumbent, anti-liberal or anti-Democrat. Trende treats us to a very long and analytical argument which can be summed up with “yes, to all three questions”. Trende is of the opinion that Democrats could lose up to 60 plus seats. Newt Gingrich says 70 plus. I’m sticking with at least enough to make Nancy Pelosi something other than 3 heart-beats away from the Presidency. And I’ll be honest – I’m sort of hoping the Dems retain the majority in the Senate. Anyway, read Trende’s article, see if you agree.
Next up is Howard Fineman who is pretty sure that Obama’s strategy for the midterms is to run against the GOP. He sort of fired that first shot today when he said, in a speech, that if the GOP had had its way and his stimulus had not passed unemployment would be a lot worse than it is today. I’m sure someone will remind him soon of his claim that if the stimulus was passed, unemployment wouldn’t go past 8%. He also apparently challenged the GOP, in a speech in Youngstown today, to tell the workers in a steel plant he was touring “why doing nothing would be better for America”.
Here’s a wild stab – we wouldn’t be up to our asses in trillions of dollars of new debt we can’t afford and looking down a budgetary road that promises trillions more of debt we can’t afford.
But hey, that’s just me. Meanwhile, back to Fineman:
Two years later the president is tentatively unveiling the strategy he and fellow Democrats will pursue in this fall’s election season, and it has a heavy dose of … looking backward. It’s going to be as much about history as hope, and more about attacking Republicans than promoting his own vision. The goal is to give pause to independent voters eager to punish Obama for their economic insecurity by voting for GOP candidates. The message: we can’t return power to the very people who gave us the catastrophic Great Recession to begin with.
Does he honestly think that will sell? Seriously now … does anyone think that trying to blame the other party two years into your presidency and 4 years into a Democratic Congress is going to fool anyone but those who want to be fooled? If I were a member of the GOP I’d pray he did this – it would effectively kill the hope and change meme and squarely plant him in the “old style” politician he said he wasn’t. It’s also a strategy that says he can’t run on his record.
Peter Wallsten has a WSJ piece in which he claims Democrats face a threat from their own base. I heard a Pennsylvania Democrat say today he was voting for Arlen Specter because Pat Toomey, the Republican Senatorial nominee, polled much better against Specter than he does against Sestak. Wallsten claims the rebellion is brewing “among white, working-class voters” – the “bitter clingers” of the past campaign. They’re fed up with the Democrats and Obama.
Lloyd Briggs said he is “fed up” with Washington over the Wall Street bailouts. Peggy Cendarski frets that the Democrats’ “unfair” health-care overhaul will punish those who already have good insurance coverage.
These and other Democratic voters in this blue-collar town said they are ready for a change in Washington. Some are open to backing Democratic challengers to lawmakers the party has supported for many years, and some said they may leave the party entirely come November.
There isn’t any apparent passion for Democrats in PA, although there are some very interesting races. But it is clear that what Democrats have done in the past year – with bailouts and huge spending sprees – has not resonated among the base.
More than a third of Democrats, for example, feel their own party members in Congress are “more concerned about the interests of large corporations” than those of average Americans, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week.
Not good news for Democratic incumbents, and I might add, not good news for a strategy that plans to call out the GOP for not voting to bail out Wall Street.
So watch the races carefully that are being voted today. They will provide an indicator of the mood of the country (as if VA, NJ and MA haven’t already given us an inkling). I’m particularly interested in the PA race (both senatorial and Murtha’s old district), KY (Rand Paul) and AR (Lincoln). We’ll talk about them tomorrow – but in the meantime, mull all of this over and remember it as we watch the year unfold toward the mid-terms.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
- YouTube now gets 2 billion viewers a day, a larger audience than all three networks' prime-time viewership…combined. http://bit.ly/9PaB2V #
- US Treasury says it took a $1.6 bil loss on Chrysler loan. Total losses from automaker loans expected to be $34 bil. http://bit.ly/9MZay3 #
- Iran reached a deal to swap low-enriched for high-enriched uranium with Turkey. Iranian press calls it "epic victory". http://bit.ly/b9BoU7 #
- …and that's when Neil exited the LM, to join me on the lunar surface. #BlumenthalSpeeches #
- So, right after Omaha Beach, my CO asked me to take a squad and find this Ryan fellow, whose brothers had all died. #BlumenthalSpeeches #
- "Mojo In The Morning" show has been contacted by Miss Universe officials about her part in a "Stripper 101" contest. http://bit.ly/aO2VCh #
- Miss USA, Rima Fakih, the first Arab American to wear the crown, is a pretty good stripper, too. | http://twitpic.com/1os9nr #
- California pot growers face a new and serious threat: falling prices. A man can't even make a decent illegal living.¦ http://bit.ly/dh6IRl #
Powered by Twitter Tools