Putin, Trump, Obama and Our Shared Interests with Russia

The current insanity over the Russian hacking of DNC emails, not yet proved in my opinion, is another tempest in a teapot.  It has merely provided Obama another opportunity to demonstrate his petulance and contempt for Trump.  It's ironic that the hacks, as revealed on Wikileaks, demonstrate just how corrupt the media and Democratic party are.  Their collusion is only surprising as to the vastness of its extent.

Worth considering is the extent to which our nation's interests align with Putin's.  This is not the same as admiring Putin, who is a dictator and likely murderer.  But he is also the leader of a singularly important nation, whose interests have changed since the cold war.  Full disclosure, I am a former officer in the U.S. Submarine force, but that doesn't influence my thinking here.

First and foremost, both Russia and the U.S. have an interest in isolating and defeating Islamic extremism.  Russia is ringed by Muslims 'stans on its southern border.  Their experience with the Chechens demonstrated the need to contain the spread of extremism.  The U.S. interest in this matter is actually less clear, but certainly, our security from terrorism has to top the list.  With this common interest, cooperation with Putin on defeating ISIS in Syria, keeping the Sunnis and Shiites divided to contain extremism makes sense.  For the record, I don't think that the Arab Muslim world can ever be democratic due to the high rates of consanguineous marriage; Steve Sailer laid this out over a dozen years ago.

The other conundrum with Russia is the confluence of continued warfare in the Middle East and the Russian violation of the Ukrainian border and seizure of Crimea.  One of the key sources of conflict in the Middle East are the asinine borders that do not respect natural geographic feature or traditional tribal regions.  The rise of ISIS stems from the fact that Sunni tribes in both eastern Syria and western Iraq feel greater kinship to each other than to Shiite governments in Damascus and Baghdad respectively.  A redrawing of the borders is necessary to end the incessant warfare and migration crises.  But the U.S. is wedded to a policy of strictly maintaining the sanctity of borders worldwide.  We believe that a failure to do so would allow mischief to break out along Chinese, Indian, or other regions.  This is where Russia comes in.  Their seizure of the Crimea was just, in my opinion, given that it was stolen from the Russian federation in the 1950s by Khruschev.  Were we to grant the legitimacy of some border changes with Russia, they might be amenable to a deal where we redraw Middle East borders, as a one-time exception to the sanctity of borders policy.

I believe that the future of Europe has been put in danger by Muslim migration.  Dealing with the root causes, other than Merkel's fecklessness, is in our long term best interest. Only Europe and the Anglosphere share our values, so helping to save them from themselves is in the U.S. national interest.

The final way in which our interests align also involves Europe.  For various political reasons, Putin has postured as the only defender of traditional Christian values.  I doubt that he is sincere, but his example in promoting these values stands as a contrast to the current European model of attempting to destroy Christianity within the borders of Western European nations.

So I applaud Trump for his tweet.    

Russians are playing @CNN and @NBCNews for such fools - funny to watch, they don't have a clue! @FoxNews totally gets it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2016

He knows he has time to deal with Putin.  Putin smartly decided not to retaliate against Obama's petulance, which was the alpha male move.  A relationship based on mutual respect and recognizing shared interests will serve the U.S. well when it comes to Russia.  Since Russia abandoned international Communism, our interests can often be aligned.

Obama: Black Father Absence to be Solved By...

... You guessed, it, taxes on the rich.  No kidding.  From Reuters:

At the panel discussion, the president defended his practice of encouraging young African American men to take responsibility for their children when they become parents.
. . .
He said policy makers had to budget for programs that helped impoverished youth, and he singled out changing tax loopholes such as one on "carried interest" enjoyed by fund managers as a way to help boost resources for such programs.

This is more evidence, as if we needed it, that Obama's approach makes race relations in America worse, not better. Today we see him stirring up class animosity, conflating the salaries of hedge fund managers with the death of black fathers in the home, as if 1 thing had anything to do with the other.   He is on to something as the absence of black fathers in the home is definitely a contributing factor to the rioting we have seen in the black community.  But, as I've said before, Obama should get a refund for any Economics classes he took at Harvard or Columbia.

Further, the last thing that black families need is more government intervention.  The war on poverty launched by Lyndon Johnson has turned out to be a war on black families. In typically racist fashion the Democrat party put into practice policies that undermined African-American families; substituting the government for fathers and ensuring that black men would be priced out of the labor market by a rising minimum wage.

The first black President could have been a god-send to this country's race relations, instead he has chosen to divide the nation on the basis of race and class. Thanks.

What You Should Be Reading:

• Dalrock, because he breaks down family issues with a keen parsing of the statistics and the insight that comes with a true understanding of how evolutionary psychology is applied to interpersonal relations between the sexes.  His most recent post on black children living with their fathers is here.
• The Scratching Post, because KTCat blogs everyday at a consistently high level.

Deny Obama Entry to Congress for SOTU Address - UPDATED

Under the concept of separation of powers, the President is invited annually by the Congress to address the "State of the Union."  While it is a constitutional requirement that the President provide a report or address as to the State of the Union, there is no requirement as to the form it takes.  In 2013, Speaker Boehner invited the President to deliver the address:

Dear Mr. President:
As we round out the first session of the 113th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the president’s State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  In that spirit, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas, particularly for putting Americans back to work.  It’s my honor to invite you to speak before a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

However, under the current circumstances of the President's unprecedented extra-legal usurpation of powers, especially, but not only with respect to illegal immigration; Speaker Boehner and soon-to-be Majority Leader McConnell should send a letter to the President that reads something like this:

Dear Mr. President:
As we look forward to the first session of the 114th Congress, we look ahead to the new year and with it the annual tradition of the President providing the Congress a report on the State of the Union address.  In the coming year, Americans expect Washington to focus on their priorities and to look for common ground in addressing the challenges facing our country.  However, through your executive actions that have exceeded the authority provided you under law, you have failed to include the Congress in addressing the nation's challenges.  In the spirit of Constitutional observance, we welcome an opportunity to hear your ideas on addressing these issue, but not through personal appearance, rather in the form of written correspondence to be delivered by January 28, 2015. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
JOHN BOEHNER
Speaker of the House

Such action is entirely within tradition and legitimate constitutionality.  The Congressional Research Service documents that:

Between 1801 and 1913, Presidents fulfilled their constitutional duty by sending their yearly report as a formal written letter to Congress. These written messages contained information about the state of the nation, and also included policy recommendations.

This action would underscore Congressional prerogative in the face of the President's unprecedented and unilateral usurpation of power.  There will be howls from the left; but no one can claim that anything other than Obama's feelings would be hurt.  However, that would hit him where he lives, because, like any would be dictator, he loves the trappings of power.  Indeed, the delivery of the SOTU was discontinued for a long period for just such a reason:

Likening it to a “speech from the throne” reminiscent of monarchy’s vestiges, Thomas Jefferson changed course and instead submitted his Annual Message in writing.

Obama can just get used to his coming retirement a little early by losing this perquisite due to his own arrogance.

Not Barack Obama, in any way. (Thomas Jefferson if you didn't know.)

UPDATE

Andrew McCoy (@DrewMTips), writing in the Ace of Spades blog, echoes my thoughts and adds this:

Yesterday, Boehner said, "The president had said before that he's not king and he's not an emperor," Boehner says. "But he's sure acting like one." 

Why would the Speaker invite such a man to address "the people's house"? All Obama would do would use the time to lecture members of a co-equal branch on what they must do and what he deems acceptable work product for them. Members of the United States Congress are under no obligation to sit mutely while the President brow beats them. 

Obama has said he doesn't feel compelled to listen to the voters who showed up to the polls a little over two weeks ago. The Representatives elected by those people should make it clear they are simply acting in kind, they will not listen to him.

Seize the Initiative on Illegal Immigration

Republicans need to seize the initiative on illegal immigration and propose a plan before Obama takes executive action this December.  It won't stop the President from making yet another extra-consitutional move, but it would serve to highlight his unwillingness to to abide by the law and work with the Congress.  The GOP needs to deal with the issue because it will hurt them in the long run.  I am under no illusion that somehow dealing with the issue will make them suddenly popular with Hispanics.  I am also certain there are no votes to be gained if current illegals are granted citizenship.  However, the issue still hurts the party.

• As more illegals continue to cross the border, they eventually spawn Democratic votes.  They either vote illegally, or eventually their children cast votes for Democrats.  This isn't to say that Republicans can't make inroads among descendants of illegal immigrants, its just not the way to bet.
• The failure to solve the problem continues to eat away at the respect for the rule of law.  It sets an environment that makes it harder for Republicans to win elections.
• Its bad for the country.  A country with a larger proportion in the middle class will vote more conservatively.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have no coherent policy to propose, because they did not campaign on this issue.  You could argue that that position served them well, but it makes it harder to govern.  What they shouldn't do is over react to the problem.  Massive deportation would be a horrible idea both in the short and long run.  Do we want the DHS to get in good practice with identifying and rounding up millions of undesirables?  Think of that power in another Democratic President's hands in the mold of Obama.  

Here is what should be proposed and why:

• Secure the border with more technology, fences and the like.  But also make expedited deportation far easier.  You can have great border security, but once an alien born child sets foot on U.S. soil, he or she now has due process rights that adds time to the deportation process.  In the meantime, the illegal is released, often never to be seen again.
• From a previous post: To keep the DHS accountable, if illegal crossings weren't reduced each year, the Congress should cut the budget for the immediate staff of the Secretary of DHS, and impose a hiring freeze on all portions of the DHS budget except border control.  Such ruthless tactics work; I know, because I work for the government.  But the Congress is never willing to hold agencies accountable. And frankly, part of the problem is that government is so huge.  Obviously its size needs to shrink.
• From Newt Gingrich in 2012: "We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts."  But the practical difficulties of such a program are immense.  I would prefer to the let those without criminal records come forward and legislation that aggressively deports those with felony convictions.
• A guest worker program, but maybe later.  The supply side of this equation is changing rapidly.  New statistics will soon be released that show that Mexico is no longer accountable for most of the illegal immigration. Mexico's fertility rate has continued to fall to just barely above replacement at 2.2 births per woman.  Having skilled workers is good with good education is helpful to the economy.  The unskilled? Not so much.  

Mexican fertility rate from 1960 to 2012.

That downward trend has continued.  In some ways, I think that the problem of illegal immigration may solve itself, but not soon enough to prevent more damage from working into the body politic.  Republicans have an opportunity to upstage Obama on this issue.  As Krauthammer points out, his narcissism always gets the better of him, so why not use it to help the country and further disadvantage his party?

What You Should Be Reading

• Left Coast Rebel has a nice score card of worthy candidates for whom he urged donations.  Well done.
• KTCat excoriates DeMaio for his relentless negative campaign.  I still have a Carl DeMaio yard sign out front, but admit to feeling queasy about his attack ads that made Carl sound like a Democrat, complete with Mediscare tactics.  If DeMaio was a tea party favorite, why did he end up turning off so many of that persuasion?  KTCat wasn't the only one of my conservative or libertarian friends who abandoned DeMaio.

What Obama's Scandals Have in Common

The scandals besetting the administration have this in common, they all spring from a desire to score political victory at all costs.  The administration's belief is that it must maintain a narrative, convenient to the President, facts be damned, rule of law as well.

The scandal of Benghazi grew out of a desire to wish away the inconvenience of the resurgence of al-Qaeda.  Obama was supposed to have won the war on terror by killing bin Laden, the success of terrorists in killing a U.S. ambassador couldn't be admitted to, so some poor schlub who made a third rate video finds himself behind bars.  Some excellent background and the Petraeus connection here.

The IRS targeting of tea party and "patriot" groups came after prominent Democratic politicians and the left wing grass roots led a drumbeat of accusations that the tea party was not a genuine grass roots movement, but a creature of the Koch brothers and anonymous right-wing billionaires.  We were warned that Democrats might push the IRS to target conservative groups in 2010 and look what happened.

Similarly, the massive dragnet against the AP's phone records look like payback for another story that upset the Obama narrative about the war on terror.  In May of the election year, the AP broke a story of an al-Qaeda plot to blow up an airliner on the anniversary of the bin Laden killing.  Bringing to the public's attention the fact that there were negative consequences to the killing of bin Laden and the fact that the terrorists are still active is another inconvenient narrative.

Finally, while not a scandal, the pending furloughs of defense employees was also wholly avoidable.    The administration directed the Defense Department to continue spending at last year's levels, rather than setting aside reserves in case of sequestration.  Allowing any hint that there would be actually be a sequestration might hurt Obama's chances for re-election in northern Virginia home to many defense employees and contractors.  The administration even told contractors that they shouldn't send out the warning notices that their might be layoffs.  Now, furloughs will cause across the board delays to defense programs, which will cascade into increased costs in future years.  Meanwhile, the administration has yet to propose any significant program cuts that would rationalize the defense budget.

What connects these issues is the unlimited greed for power and the bending of every portion of the government to maintain the President's power.  Ironically, the scandals will weaken Obama during his second term.

What You Should Be Reading

DooDoo Economics reports on Microsoft getting into the political discrimination business.  Memo to Bill Gates, the election is over.

Mark Steyn tells you all you need to know about the rot that is Britain, as revealed by the machete murders in Woolwich.  The reaction of the British is more frightening than the heinous crime itself.


Patrick Buchanan explains why the Middle East will stay engulfed in civil war for a while, and why we should stay out of it.  There is precious little the U.S. can do to influence a good outcome there.

Islamic Terrorist Brought to Justice - America Rises to the Challenge

This afternoon, I prayed earnestly that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be captured alive.  I thank God that it was so.  I hope that his capture and the subsequent information we find will shed light on how the tragedy at the Boston Marathon came to be and help us prevent further attacks.  I am proud to be an American, where even terrorist murderers are captured alive, when we are able.  One of the state police spokesman was very matter of fact today, saying, we always attempt to capture suspects alive, with an air that suggested the reporter who questioned that was somewhat ignorant.

Once again, ordinary Americans also rose to the occasion in aiding the capture of a terrorist.  The quick thinking of the man on Franklin St. who called 911 to report that a bloodied man was in his boat was the key action that aided in his capture.

It is clear that the bombings were the work of Islamic terrorists.  I thought this was going to be true, but wanted some confirmation. We have to face the unpleasant and uncomfortable fact that even if a very small minority of Muslims are willing to martyr themselves by attacking the West and America, we are going to have a long and bloody effort ahead of us.  Muslims complain that these people are a small minority who tarnish the name of Islam.  Fair enough.  Perhaps the Islamic community should monitor for the signs of radicalization and aid authorities when they are aware of likely terror activity or cells.  Preaching hate, jihad and murder should be unacceptable to all Americans, including Muslims.  Why does preaching that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman provoke outrage on the left, but not the preaching of jihad and hatred for Western values?

I oppose the death penalty, with two exceptions, treason and espionage.  The reason for those exceptions is that those crimes are an assault on the country as a whole.*  Under the doctrine of inherent right of self-defense, nations have the right to hang those found guilty because we are defending ourselves against a foreign threat when doing so, just as we may kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield.  As horrible as other crimes may be, I oppose the death penalty for them because our society is capable of self defense in locking such persons away.  But treason and espionage are acts of war against the nation itself.  If found guilty, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be facing the death penalty.  Perhaps he might bargain for a lesser sentence by providing our government with needed information.

This is a great country, where we rise to the occasion during such times.  Even the President, who frequently angers me with his public statements, rose to the occasion with an excellent summary.  I applaud the brevity and clarity of his remarks.  It is a reminder that we are more united than we may give ourselves credit for.







* For a complete treatment of the morality of the death penalty, see the Evangelium Vitae of Pope John Paul II on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.  I quote from section 56 below:

This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent 

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".

In my view, the crimes of treason and espionage are such threats to the state as to be an existential threat of the state's ability to provide for the public order and people's safety.  This is my reasoning for the exception.

SOTU Brutus?

I missed the delivery of the State of the Union (SOTU) address tonight, but read the text.  As usual, the President has conveniently forgotten facts and argues against straw-man positions that Republicans have never taken.  Before I plunge in with criticism, there were some things that were good, or at least not that awful.

Is Uncle Joe falling asleep back there?

• With the exception of path to citizenship, Obama said most of the right things on immigration reform.  I especially liked this quote: And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy. If only I thought he really meant it.
• He made a feeble call for compromise, which would have been nice if he had practiced it any time over the previous four years.
• He calls for means testing Medicare, of course, he doesn't call it that, stating obliquely that he will "ask more from the wealthiest seniors." I actually believe this is a good idea, because as the level at which means testing for medicare falls, which is inevitable, given its problems, political support for the status quo will be undermined.  Without getting specific, he says that he will propose more cost savings from Medicare.  That would be great if it were not for our experience with him, that when he offers no specifics, he actually has no plan.
• Deficit reduction gets a lot of air time.  That in itself is evidence of how the tea party has changed the political dialog.
• He talked about bursting the college bubble.  I like that he points out that college costs are soaring and threatens to link federal aid to reigning in costs.  Emphasizing the known link between good technical education at two year schools and employment was also good to read.

Of course there were multiple lapses of memory and disregard for fact:

• He calls sequestration harsh, blames the Congress for passing it, neglecting that he signed the bill.
• Standard accounting treatment of assets that are depleted is called a tax loophole.
•  He conveniently ignores that the federal government created the college bubble through various loan and scholarship programs.
• al-Qaeda is a shadow of its former self. Really? How do they strike deep into the desert and take over an Algerian gas plant? 
• We will invest in new capabilities for the armed forces.  I hardly think so when you signed the sequestration law that significantly cuts their budget.  If true, he will have to cut troop strength even more, because that is the only place to weapons development money.
• He waves the bloody shirt of Newtown to propose gun control that would not have prevented the tragedy at Newtown.
• He claims credit for increased natural gas production even while his EPA works furiously to make extraction more difficult.

And there was the plain awful stuff.

• Imperial overreach on climate change, the usual: if Congress won't act, then I will.
• More shovel ready public works.  Worked great last time.
• More green energy subsidies. Worked great last time.
• Another wasteful "Head Start" like program. For an indictment of Head Start, read here.
• Another minimum wage increase that will predictably increase unemployment.
• And there was this whopper: That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts.  His illegal and unconstitutional targeting of American citizens, anywhere in the world, without authority is a heinous violation of the constitution.  Congress should rescind the authority granted the President after 9-11 because they have been stretched beyond meaning. 
• Some scheme to make sure that stricter voting laws are removed in red states.

I'm glad I didn't watch the speech, knowing Obama's style of delivery would only made it more unpalatable.  Someone I know who supposedly had some inside preview of the speech told me I would be surprised.  I was not.  This speech was devoid of any concrete proposal that will see the light of day in this Congress, with the possible exception of the immigration portion.  Meanwhile, folks, read the whole transcript here, and then check the debt clock on the right side of the page.  Let me know if the speech matched the seriousness of our dilemma.

Looming Sequestration and Defense - Obama Pressure to Violate the Law

Without taking a position on the wisdom of sequestration, I have it on good authority that it is the official policy of the Department of Defense not to plan for the eventuality; despite widespread belief that it will.  In my opinion, this is because the word has come down from the administration to ignore what is happening so that defense contractors who might vote Democrat won't change their minds.  Of course, its junior enlisted who might be hurt worst, but here is how the administration is protecting them; answer, not much.

Though military paychecks would be protected, enlisted sailors Armstrong has encountered worry about how their housing and health care benefits might be slashed. Accounts for both would likely undergo harsh cost-cutting measures under sequestration.
“Those also are important parts of the troops’ benefit and compensation packages,” she said. “So when you say that personnel accounts are going to be untouched, what we are hearing is: They may be impacted.”
Also heightening anxiety is the dearth of details from the White House and the Pentagon on how the Defense Department would make nearly $54 billion in cuts to defense spending required in 2013 alone, if sequestration is triggered.

Meanwhile, administration pressure on defense contractor not to obey the WARN act is mounting.  Red State tipped us that Lockheed-Martin will not send out layoff warnings, under pressure from the "most corrupt administration, evah."

More of that famed Obama leadership.  These cuts are the law.  The Congress hasn't passed a budget in so long that I can't recall when it last happened.  Passing a budget would be the only way to avoid the cuts; so the President's policy is to pretend they aren't happening.

Leaking Stuxnet

The Supermassive blackhole of incompetence that is the Obama administration has unleashed potential serious repercussions because of administration leaks that U.S. was behind the Stuxnet virus.  First, a little background.  The Stuxnet virus is an extremely sophisticated malware payload that targeted Iranian enrichment centrifuges.  What is little known, is that the there appears to be a "man in the loop" to direct the damage that the virus causes.  The virus was first spread through the use of infected USB thumb drives.  (Safety tip: there are multiple reasons you should never use these devices, ever.)  Then the virus spreads to other computers on the infected network and calls home.  It is looking for the signature of a software package used to program a Programable Logic Controller (PLC).  The virus is clearly sending information to a home computer and receiving updated instructions from a "man in the loop."  In this case the the individual controlling the virus went looking for software designed specifically to control the Siemens PLCs to control uranium enrichment centrifuges. You can view a simplified explanation of the process without reference to Iran or Siemens at Symantec.

The man in the loop is a big problem for the U.S., along with the leak that the U.S. was involved in the attack.  From the WaPo:

A damaging cyberattack against Iran’s nuclear program was the work of U.S. and Israeli experts and proceeded under the secret orders of President Obama, who was eager to slow that nation’s apparent progress toward building an atomic bomb without launching a traditional military attack, say current and former U.S. officials.

Is there any doubt that the political purpose of the leak was to enhance the administrations cred with regards to being tough on Iran?  This is the worst administration for politically motivated leaks I have ever seen.  What might be the consequences?

The subject of cyberwarfare is a little murky now, but I have no doubt that the general laws of warfare apply to cyberspace as well.  The Stuxnet attack seemed targeted to a military capability of Iran, avoiding civilian collateral damage.  By itself, the scrupulousness of the attack would make me believe that it was a U.S. product.  However, by leaking our involvement, the administration has left us open to a reprisal by the Iranians, against which we might have little recourse under international law.  International law provides for a proportional response to an attack by a foreign power; especially if that attack lacks sanction under any reasonable rubric of self defense or U.N. resolution.  If Iran respond with a cyber attack of their own, we have no recourse, not even through deniability, because the Iranians can claim proportional response.

Further, the disclosure puts U.S. personnel at risk who were involved in the construction of Stuxnet.  As a legal matter, the keys stolen from a Taiwanese firm that allowed the USB to hijack portions of the Windows operating system, were stolen illegally.  The admission makes the U.S. government a de facto partner or perpetrator of a criminal act that we have signed treaties to prevent.  Conceivably, a lawsuit to prise open information regarding the construction of the virus could follow.

To be clear, I support covert means to derail the Iranian nuke program.  But, the leakers should be punished, except that they have probably been sanctioned the President himself, for selfish political gain.  Damn the country, he needs re-election.  

In case you wanted the basic explanation:

 

Quote of the Week

From Mark Steyn, again, speaking of Obama's lofty rhetoric compared to actual conditions on the ground and over the dam.

Take, for example, the attempt at soaring rhetoric: "That's how we built this country – together. We constructed railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We did those things together," he said, in a passage that was presumably meant to be inspirational but was delivered with the faintly petulant air of a great man resentful at having to point out the obvious, yet again.

. . .

Beyond the cheap dissembling, there was a bleak, tragic quality to this paragraph. Does anyone really believe a second-term Obama administration is going to build anything? Yes, you, madam, the gullible sap at the back in the faded hope'n'change T-shirt. You seriously think your guy is going to put up another Hoover Dam? Let me quote one Deanna Archuleta, Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in a speech to Democratic environmentalists in Nevada:

"You will never see another federal dam."

Ever.

All That's Wrong With Obama's Policy on Dreamers

The President's back door amnesty plan is is filled pitfalls. I'm glad he rolled it out now, because it gives time for all voters, including Latinos, to see how flawed it is. Here is a brief summary of what I can think of with a few minutes of reflection:

• It violates the statute for granting work permits to aliens, undermining the rule of law.
  
• It can be rescinded by the next President.
  
• It could be a trap that would allow the identification of these aliens for deportation in the future.
• It could be a trap that would allow the identification of the aliens' parents for deportation in the future.
  
• It will increase the reported unemployment rate to the extent that the nonresident undocumented aliens seek work. (Yes, illegal immigrants, but I'm keeping to the legal language.)
  
• It will put more pressure on legal residents looking for work, because of added competition from this group.
• Did I mention that it undermines the rule of law?
• It encourages more illegal immigration, because parents want good for their children most of all. Getting their children eligible for work in the U.S. is a powerful incentive for further law breaking, given the miserable conditions in most of Latin America and especially Mexico; where the majority of illegal immigrants hail from.
  

That's what comes immediately to mind. I am sure my readers can add more. More interestingly, is how Romney should respond. His initial response that the executive order makes it more difficult to achieve lasting reform because it poisoned the discussion struck the right tone. It reminds the Hispanic voters that Obama had the chance to pass whatever he wanted in 2009 and 2010, but chose to ignore the issue. Romney would do well to incorporate some of what Newt Gingrich has said on this subject. Specifically, he should emphasize control of the border as a down payment for solving our immigration problems. Next, he should put forth proposals to create what Newt Gingrich calls a "21st Century visa program" and expanded H-1B visa program. Solving this problem is in the best interest of America, because drawing talented immigrants and even unskilled laborers balances out our demographic and employment deficits. The President, through his extra-legal maneuvering has made the problem harder to solve. That's not leadership, that's demagoguery.

Affront to the Rule of Law - Obama Hating on Illegals

The President's announcement today that he would grant work permits to young immigrants who were not in the country legally is an affront to the rule of law. The President himself had said that he couldn't take unilateral action a year ago. Here are excerpts from the relevant statute, 8 CFR 274a.12.

(a) Aliens authorized employment incident to status. Pursuant to the statutory or regulatory reference cited, the following classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. Any alien who is within a class of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)–(a)(8), (a)(10)–(a)(15), or (a)(20) of this section, and who seeks to be employed in the United States, must apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a document evidencing such employment authorization. USCIS may, in its discretion, determine the validity period assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to work in the United States.

. . .

(3) An alien admitted to the United States as a refugee pursuant to section 207 of the Act for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(4) An alien paroled into the United States as a refugee for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

. . .

(6) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant fiancé or fiancée pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, or an alien admitted as a child of such alien, for the period of admission in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(7) An alien admitted as a parent (N–8) or dependent child (N–9) of an alien granted permanent residence under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the Act, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(8) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant pursuant to the Compact of Free Association between the United States and of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau;

. . .

(10) An alien granted withholding of deportation or removal for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(11) An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive;

(12) An alien granted Temporary Protected Status under section 244 of the Act for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(13) An alien granted voluntary departure by the Attorney General under the Family Unity Program established by section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(14) An alien granted Family Unity benefits under section 1504 of the Legal Immigrant Family Equity (LIFE) Act Amendments, Public Law 106–554, and the provisions of 8 CFR part 245a, Subpart C of this chapter, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(15) Any alien in V nonimmigrant status as defined in section 101(a)(15)(V) of the Act and 8 CFR 214.15.

. . .

(20) Any alien in U–2, U–3, U–4, or U–5 nonimmigrant status, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.14, for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by USCIS to the alien.

I believe the key issue will be paragraph (11) above. May the Presidential directive cover a class of individuals, or was the statute written to allow the President to grant clemency to individuals. The law specifies an alien specified by the President. This would seem to prevent the President to granting clemency to a class of individuals. This will probably become a court case. Regardless of its outcome, Obama is clearly using administrative fiat to thwart the plain intent of the law.

Further, how does this really help the illegal aliens in this category. Even if found to be legal, the directive will only be temporary. Put yourself in the shoes of the young illegal. Why would I sign up for this when next January, the USCIS and DHS now have evidence of my illegal entry, by my own admission, and can proceed with deportation. Obama must really hate illegal immigrants to set them up like this.

Cronyism Screws the Middle Class

Check out Beers with Demo today. In another heart breaking injustice, retirees of Delphi Automotive were screwed out of their rights to their retirements due to pressure brought to bear by the Obama administration. They are suing, but it took three years to get subpoenaed documents out of the administration. Most transparent administration evah!

The auto bailout was one of the most shameful episodes in American business jurisprudence. The innocent, such as Delphi salaried retirees and Indiana schoolteachers, got the shaft. The guilty, the unions whose bargaining unsustainable retiree benefits and health care made their industry uncompetitive, got rewarded. Additionally, bankruptcy law was thwarted and violated, bond holders were not given front of the line rights as the law called for, but the unions got that place instead. Just another reason that Obama must be defeated. His consistent stand to undermine the rule of law is paving the way for dictatorship in America. Even if he is not personally guilty of wanting to be dictator, his actions are setting the stage.

Pre-Election Outlook for Team Taxpayer

I played high school football and tonight feels like Thursday night before an important Friday game, not the big game, but an important one we need to win. Team taxpayer is favored to win two important contests tomorrow, the Wisconsin governor's recall and Proposition B in San Diego.

The U-T is reporting that Proponents of Proposition B have spent $1.8 million on the measure against $227K by those opposed. That doesn't prove it will win, but it makes me smile nonetheless. A bit of Schadenfreude came from this quote in the Voice of San Diego.

“From a political standpoint, it’s pretty likely that this is going to pass in June," labor leader Michael Zucchet said in April. "And when I say pretty likely, I mean we’re [expletive].”

I don't get the anger. I am a government employee for the federal government. Much of my expected pension benefit comes from a 401 style plan. I'm not in a union. Even if I was, the union couldn't bargain for my pay and benefits, only work place rules. But I have significant protections against unjust firings and am afforded excellent work place accommodations. Why isn't this good enough for state and local workers?

On [to] Wisconsin. Barack Obama is flexing his muscle in support of Democrat Tom Barrett, on Twitter! That's been the extent of the President's campaign to unseat Scott Walker. Meanwhile the truth of how well Walker's reforms appears to have sunk in, as he is a steady favorite, and above 50% in all of the polls. The RCP average is at 6.7% in favor of Walker on the eve of the election. As most political junkies know, Walker's reining in the public employees unions is the reason for this recall. That's what makes the race so important; the taxpayers have to believe that they can put a lid on public employee pay and benefits if state and local government is to ever become affordable again. This is what makes me wonder about the left. Unchecked, employee benefits will destroy government's ability to deliver any of the services the left wants government to deliver, but they don't seem to get math.

In the San Diego mayor's race I feel fairly certain that Carl DeMaio will be in a run off, whether against Filner or Fletcher, I don't know. I have been supporting DeMaio for some time. My regret is that Nathan Fletcher is being vilified in TV ads. I disagree with him on some issues and his decision to leave the GOP, but he seems to be a decent guy with a long history of service. These campaign ads makes me glad I lost an election in junior high and lost any appetite for further campaigning as a candidate. The ads against Carl DeMaio over the police benefits for widows seemed pretty miserable as well.

Labor Participation Rate Hits Historic Low

Not since 1981 has the national labor participation rate been this low. Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge put up this graph:


Despite a few upticks, there has been a steady plummeting of the labor participation rate, to a 30 year low of 64.3%. The Obama administration has done nothing to reverse this trend. This is the key indicator of economic health, because this indicates the number of people working in the economy. No matter how the Administration spins it, they are failing to provide jobs for Americans. The number of people not working is at an all time record high as well. I don't think the economy will turn around until Obama is no longer the President. His administration presents too much of a risk of uncertainty to business. Have overseas profits? Don't repatriate with high marginal tax rates. Want to hire more workers? Will you get a nasty surprise that your health plan doesn't qualify or maybe there is a minimum wage hike around the corner. In a politically incorrect industry, like oil or gas exploration? Are you up for regulatory crucifixion?

The list goes on, but the uncertainty of future hostility and regulatory change are the main reasons we claim that the administration is engaging in a #WarOnJobs.

UPDATE

Even DailyKos is publishing this graph and bemoaning the jobs picture. Will wonders never cease?

Obama Exploits Immigrants and Immigration Issue

The President is running smack about immigration policy but he's got nothing but a bag of hot air. On the campaign trail in Cartegena, Colombia the Obama delivered the following demonstrably false statement:

In his most specific pledge yet to US Hispanics, President Obama said Saturday he would tackle immigration policy in the first year of a second term.

“This is something I care deeply about,’’ he told Univision. “It’s personal to me.’’

Compare that to what he said in July 2007 to the National Council of La Raza:

When I'm president, I will put comprehensive immigration reform back on the nation's agenda. And I will not rest until it is passed once and for all.

In March 2009 here is what he promised Hispanic groups:

According to an immigrant advocacy group in Massachusetts, Obama is to lay out his proposal in May.

"We are pleased that the President met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to reiterate his commitment to immigration reform and that he will be laying out his plan for such reform in early May," Eva A. Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said in a statement.

And when May 2009 rolled around? Crickets. So how's all that hype 'n change working out you on the left on this issue? During his first two years in office, with overwhelming Democrat control of both houses of C0ngress, Obama did exactly squat to advance immigration reform. Further, if you go to his website, barackobama.com, you still won't even see mention of immigration reform as an issue, as of today, April 15, 2012.

I took a screen shot for posterity:


Not a word about this issue, because, clearly he's not resting.

Since the President won't propose a clear path ahead, the I will, and I hope Mitt Romney follows suit.

• Secure the border. This is the down payment expected by a nation that wants respect for the rule of law. No other part of immigration reform is going to matter or get enacted without this happening first, because we've been lied to by Democrats and Republicans alike. When we are sure that people aren't entering the U.S. illegally, we can talk about the rest of this agenda.
  
• A reasonable penalty for those who have come illegally and wish to stay. Top on my list of requirements will be to register as aliens. They would get a valid social security card, to lessen the market for identity theft. Also they must agree never to vote, because you won't become a citizen by breaking our laws.
  
• Expand our guest worker programs and H-1B visa programs. By the way, Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer has led the charge to restrict H-1B visas, with Obama's apparent acquiescence. How does that square with the President's desire to reform immigration. More evidence that Obama is lying. There is a lot of evidence that the more skilled we immigrants we bring to America, the more jobs we create.
• Provide a path for all foreign students who complete an advanced degree to remain in the United States and find work. Give unlimited numbers of visas to these students who do find work.
  

This is a start, Romney could adopt this plan and immediately get Obama on the defensive.

After further research, I find that many of the elements of my plan turn out to be very similar to Newt Gingrich's. I recommend his website to read a more comprehensive treatment of this issue. Even though I didn't support Newt, he really is the smartest guy in the room.

White House: North Korea nuke agreement is a ‘positive step’

Or so said the headline on the Hill on February 29.

The White House said Wednesday that North Korea’s agreement to a moratorium on its nuclear testing is a “positive first step” to denuclearizing the Korean Penninsula.
. . .
In announcing the agreement Wednesday morning, the State Department also said it will provide 240,000 metric tons of food to North Korea. The department reportedly stressed that the food was not directly connected to the nuclear agreement.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Of course John Kyl (R-AZ) saw things differently at the time.

“In announcing its agreement with North Korea, the Obama Administration is effectively violating long-standing U.S. policy not to link North Korean denuclearization commitments to food aid,” Kyl said in a news release. “This policy was affirmed by the State Department as recently as February, when it stated in a letter to me that ‘the Administration has no intention of rewarding North Korea for actions it has already agreed to take.’ In an October 2011 letter, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns also assured me that ‘any engagement with North Korea will not be used as a mechanism to funnel financial or other rewards to Pyongyang.’”

Now we know how all this engagement turned out. Headline from Foreign Policy:

North Korean missile launch torpedoes Obama’s engagement strategy

They're probably guilty of mixing metaphors, but you get the idea.

This reminds me of a news report I published in 2009. Which I repeat here for nostalgic effect and because family celebrations have left me in no state to contribute effectively with original material.

Kim Outwits Obama - UN Outraged (from The Liberator Today, May 26, 2009)

UN High Commissioner for Intellectual Fairness, Clive Smith-Graves expressed outrage today at Kim Jong Il's punking of Barack Obama with his latest underground nuke test. "We strive for fairness in these battle of wits," explained the commissioner, "it's certainly beyond the pale for Kim to be engaged in such mental fisticuffs against an overmatched opponent." Only days before the test, the Obama administration was reportedly relaxed over the prospect of such a test. "I tell ya, they sucker punched us," said Rahm "Mickey" Emmanuel, Obama's handler. "Who'd a thunk that Kim saying he was going to conduct a test was any kind of warning. I tell ya, Obama has the talent to become a good fighter, but instead of that he's becoming a legbreaker to some cheap, second rate loanshark." When asked which loanshark he had in mind, Emmanuel declined to comment.

Smith-Graves explained that there are good reasons for UN rules for these sorts of affairs. "Allowing battles of wits to get out of hand can lead to real violence. It's like the class valedictorean teasing the schoolyard bully that he can't do his sums; the bully ends up breaking our hero's nose. I think we all have lived through this kind of situation," he sniffed. Asked what action the UN would be taking, Smith-Graves responded, "You know, the usual, feigned outrage, empty resolutions and private toasts that the U.S. has once again received it's well deserved comeuppance."

My Buffett Rule

The President's Buffett Rule will not yield significant revenue for the federal government, but he's going to push class warfare anyway. Even under his rule, Mitt Romney, for instance, would not pay a higher marginal rate than Buffet's secretary because Romney gives huge amounts to charity. These donations, while laudable, will also become more valuable under Obama's proposal because while he insists on raising rates, he does nothing to close loopholes. In fact, the President has done nothing to reform our execrable tax code, just one more reason he doesn't deserve re-election.

So here is a Buffett rule that would help everyone. Tax all sources of income, including corporate profits at some number around 18%. Allow a standard deduction and no other deductions and voila, Buffett is paying more than his secretary. Real tax reform would broaden the base of taxpayers, and result in a more efficient system. Under my proposal, the federal government would see rising revenue as tax avoidance strategies are nullified and as the benefits of a simple tax code with low rates translates into real economic growth; as opposed as to what we have seen under Obama.

The fact that taxing investments at a higher rate would harm the economy means little to the President. The fact that the tax will do little for closing the deficit means little to the President. The fact that this proposal is pure politics that does nothing to fix the long standing problem of a too complex tax code is more evidence that the President is not fit to be re-elected.

The President's Disgusting Rhetoric

The more this President gets into campaign mode, the more disgusting his rhetoric becomes. I saw him on the TV the other night, accusing the Republicans of wanting a society where no one who is poor or lower middle class gets health care, where we unemployment insurance is abolished and seniors go without medicine. He acts as if the only solutions to those problems are unending government programs underwritten with blank checks signed by the taxpayers. His comments on the Trayvon Martin case seemed designed to ignite racial tension rather than call for the rule of law, which his position would require. I still remember his "typical white person" comments from the 2008 campaign and wonder if he is permanently afflicted with prejudice. Dean and W.C. fisk his comments about the duties of the Supreme Court here and here and here. Suffice to say that he seeks to overturn centuries of precedent and ignore his own of oath of office.

Peggy Noonan noticed some of the same things, even before Obama's SCOTUS comments. She points out his slimy handling of the contraception issue, where he "deviously" plotted a change in policy that in no way satisfied the complaints of those who had criticized the contraception decision. Further evidence of his duplicity comes from the open mic moment with Medvedev, where he whines about pesky elections limiting his bargaining power.

The President seems to hold the public in contempt, at least that portion of the public that doesn't support him. He is President of all the people, but he seems to forget that. Hopefully, we can help him find employment more suitable to his temperament this November.

Michelle Obama Sent Me This Creepy Letter

Got this email from Michele Obama, since I have signed up for barackobama.com emails.

B. --

I see this happen a lot:

Someone in a crowd yells at my husband, "We love you, Barack."

That's when he interrupts himself, smiles really big, and says, "I love you back." And he does.

That's why Barack's dinners with supporters mean so much to him -- because they give him a chance to show it and to say thanks.

I can say from experience you won't want to miss out on the next dinner. I hope you'll consider donating $3 -- or whatever you can to support the campaign -- and be automatically entered today:

[redacted]

Thank you,

Michelle

It's hard to get my mind to come to grips with all that's wrong with this. The shamelessness with which it was sent is a nice starter. Bragging not about your husband's accomplishments, but about how many groupies he has? And Obama's response is not the humble "thank you" of a man who might be uncomfortable with such adulation, because his native humility reminds him that he is not perfect. Rather, he responds as the immature rock star who wants more and more.

Next the image of Obama as loving father figure to the masses of adoring fans smacks of a personality cult worthy of Kim Jong Il. He is not our father figure, he is a fellow citizen of the Republic. He is the President, to be sure, but that position is limited and temporary.

What do you think? I am too harsh?