Response to Burning the Koran - Is Allah Good?

The killing of U.N. Aid workers in Afghanistan as a response to the burning of a Koran in Florida is unreasonable. That should go without saying, but unfortunately, it needs to be said. It is unreasonable to kill anyone over a religious desecration. It is unreasonable to kill those unconnected in any way to the burning. It is unreasonable to kill persons of a different nationality than those who committed the "offense." Because of these heinous murders, which were committed in the name of Allah, I must ask, "What do believers in Allah believe about the nature of their God?"

It is one thing to say that it is a sin to burn a holy text, quite another to murder as a response. It causes one to question the leaders of Islam theological questions about the nature of their God. They claim the same God as I do, the God of Abraham. But I have to ask some questions.

• We know that Allah (God) is all-powerful, but is he always good? As a Christian, my answer is an unequivocal yes, God chooses to always be good. Islamic theology is not so clear to me.
• Again, we know that Allah (God) is all-powerful, would he ever demand that we disobey his word? As a Christian, I say no, because he chooses to be bound by his word, the Bible. Is Allah bound by the Koran? It is not clear. Therefore, may Allah command his followers to commit evil to advance his purposes? Judging by the behavior of crowds whipped into a frenzy by Taliban in Afghanistan, the answer is yes.
  
• Can one apply logic and reason to understand Allah's (God's) will? My answer as a Christian, is of course. The Gospel of John states that in the beginning was the Word (in Greek λόγος or logos, which means both reason and the word) so we can apply reason to discern His will. Even in the absence of God's direct intervention, Christians believe that he has ordered the world through logic and it continues without God's direct intervention. In Islam, it appears that all manner of evil is ascribed to Allah's will because all that happens in the world is through his will. It lacks order without His constant intercession.
  

By failing to address these questions on the nature of Allah, Islam fails to be a religion that brings good to the world. Its defenders argue that it is a religion of peace, but they offer no fundamental condemnation of those who murder the innocent in Allah's name. I ask that they do so, to show the world that their religion deserves consideration as a force for good in the world. Their failure leaves one to question the legitimacy of Islam.

To give credit where it due, my thinking on these issues is highly influenced by Pope Benedict's speech at the University of Regensberg on September 12, 2006. A key passage:

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (sun logo [the "u" is long and the last "o" in logo is also long]) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

Quote of the Week

Mark Steyn skewers Obama in his inimitable style, over the administration's threat to bomb the rebels if they harm civilians.

Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it’s rare to find a leader so impeccably multilateralist he’s willing to participate in both sides of a war. It doesn’t exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we’ve got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side.

Steyn's article was apparently in response to this news report.

The New York Times quoted anonymous U.S. officials this week saying they have cautioned the rebels against harming civilians, even suggesting that air strikes could target anti-Gadhafi forces if they fail to respect the laws of armed conflict.

O = W

Remember when they told us that if we voted for McCain, we would get further entangled in Middle East wars? Dean has had a series of posts titled WW()D that documented ways in which the Obama administration continued Bush policies. His most recent round up got me thinking about all the ways in which Barack Obama is a continuation of George W. Bush, hence the title of the post. Here is a quick summary. I look forward to your additions in the comments.

1. Libya, prosecuting a war without Congressional approval, wait Bush got that.
2. Shutting down keeping open Gitmo.
3. Rendition of terror suspects.
4. PATRIOT Act extension signed by Obama.
5. Lax border enforcement.
6. Budget deficits, except that Obama's are larger.
7. Warrantless tracking of cell phone locations.
8. Failure to fill oversight positions on a panel to protect privacy.
9. Ending extending Bush tax cuts. (I agree with this, however, but no lefty outrage?)
10. Letting guns flow to Mexican cartels under the watchful eye of the DHS.

How's that Hopey-Changey workin' out?

Weekend Music Chill

Convinced the family to go all baby-boomer with me this week; so we watched The Big Chill. There's a line in the movie where they question what all of the protests of the 60s were really about. The Glen Close character says "I hate to think it was all just...fashion." My answer, is that, in fact, it was. Too bad. I really liked the movie, because ultimately these people make their peace with modernity. Yeah, there was some stupidity as well, like the husband sharing. But overall, I think the movie exposes the baby boomers for who they were, while showing that they had made peace with capitalist, consumerist America, which I consider a good thing. I consider it very much a "feel good" movie.

Anyway, some decent tunes came off the sound track, here are two:

Congressman Weiner Gets His Waiver

Congressman Anthony Weiner asked for a waiver for New York City from the strictures of Obamacare. Free Republic has the news.

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.

“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.” [...] “We in New York already have hospitals, we already employ doctors and we employ nurses. We have a lot of uninsured people. … [Setting up] the exchanges is the one piece of the puzzle that would be difficult for us to do,” he said. “I’m just looking internally to whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny.”

Steven Crowder has a little fun over the whole issue with his interview of the Congressman Weiner.



Hat Tip: HotAir.

More Little Reported News - DHS Withholds FOIA Requests

Darrell Issa, the self-described "cop on the beat" has been holding hearings on Democrat stonewalling at the Department of Homeland Security over Freedom of Information Act requests. It has been previously reported by the AP (via HotAir) that DHS has appeared to take a political stance on FOIA requests. Now Issa's Government Oversight Committee is taking on the challenge.

Republicans in Congress objected Thursday to the Homeland Security Department's now-rescinded practice of requiring secretive reviews by political advisers of hundreds of requests for government files under the Freedom of Information Act. The chairman of a House oversight committee said the process "reeks of a Nixonian enemies list" and was unacceptable.

And this from the AP:

The Homeland Security Department official in charge of submitting sensitive government files to political advisers for secretive reviews before they could be released to citizens, journalists and watchdog groups complained in emails that the unusual scrutiny was "crazy" and hoped someone outside the Obama administration would discover the practice, The Associated Press has learned.
. . .
But at the Homeland Security Department, since July 2009, career employees were ordered to provide political staffers with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived and whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican. No one in government was allowed to discuss the political reviews with anyone whose information request was affected by them.

This is such an egregious abuse of the law that it deserves investigation, even if the shame of public exposure has cause the practice to halt. Further, there appears to be some retaliation as the Deputy Chief FOIA officer at DHS, Catherine Papoi, has been moved out of her office and replaced by her new boss. But rest assured, sports fans, this was not retaliation.

"The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears," Obama said shortly after he took office.

Ya think?

Eliminating Obamacare Slush Funds - Now We're Talking

From Human Events:

Republicans are testing the waters through a series of votes Thursday in the subcommittee on five pieces of legislation that would defund the law and limit power by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to access a $17.5 billion slush fund. Now we're talking.

The discovery of these slush funds has been little reported upon or noted, even in conservative outlets, with some exceptions. It forms one of the biggest impediments to rolling back Obamacare in the current fiscal year. That the Republicans in the House of Representatives are taking aim at this abomination only increases my admiration for His Tanned Magnificence. Keep up the good work. Man-crush? Oh-yeah.

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman apparently didn't get the memo from the 2010 elections that blaming Bush is not a winning strategy:

“The deficit crisis we find ourselves in is a man-made crisis,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, (D.-Calif.). “In fact, it is a Republican-made crisis." Republicans countered that ObamaCare will cost 800,000 jobs, and that 2.4 million Americans are officially excused from participating in the plan, including the Service Employees International Union, because they say they can’t afford it.

U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya

From the Washington Post:

President Obama has touted his emphasis on multilateralism in the U.S. military intervention in Libya, but — for political, operational and legal reasons — his “coalition of the willing” is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.
. . .
Although the Libya intervention was endorsed by the Arab League, the endorsement doesn’t require any Arab countries to contribute materially to the effort, said David Bosco, an assistant professor at American University.

The Arab world is not yet equipped to deal with modernity, in so many ways, this is just one more.

Government Shut Down?

If there was any doubt that the tenor of the discussion in Washington regarding the budget and spending has changed, consider this:

The potential difficulty of their job became clear after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., following an evening meeting with Senate Democrats, said negotiators had effectively settled on $33 billion in reductions from current spending, a substantial difference from the $61 billion endorsed by the House in February.

By keeping the pressure on, and not bowing to threats of taking the blame over a potential shut down, Speaker Boehner is making the progress needed. Further, he is positioning himself for next year's budget battle by learning what tactics are working. The negotiations currently in progress only affect the fiscal year that ends on September 30, so a much bigger fight looms over fiscal year 2012 spending.

Meanwhile, you know you are making the right enemies when Chuckie Schumer is conspiring against you.

Speaking to several Democratic colleagues Tuesday, Sen. Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said they should all use the word "extreme" when describing the budget cuts that Tea Party Republicans were seeking in the ongoing budget negotiations.

However, what is actually extreme is the unprecedented peacetime deficit racked up by this administration. Congratulations Tea Party.

Also, is there any better evidence that removing earmarks from the process has made it easier to get budget reductions? Since the House imposed an earmarks ban, the debate has only been about the size of the cuts, not a peep about raising spending. John Hitchcock explains why in the comments on a previous article. I do not recall in my lifetime such spirited debate about how much to cut government spending. I realize that spending has risen out of control in the first place, but the tenor of the discussion is heartening.

With regards to a government shut down, I don't think it will happen, because both sides are too uncertain about the outcome. Its like a game of high stakes poker, where shutting down the government is the equivalent of calling all in on two pair but your opponent is betting like he has a decent hand. You might win, but is it the smart move?

Libyan War Powers - UPDATE

Obama's speech this evening adequately explained the reasons for our involvement in Libya, but failed to answer some key questions and suffers from a defect of logic. But first, we must answer the constitutional questions. Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) summed up eloquently:

“It is astonishing that the administration seems to think a U.N. resolution is required but a declaration from Congress is not required to initiate offensive military strikes. No U.N. resolution and no press release from the Arab League can replace Congress’s authorization,” said Amash. “Major players in the administration used to be forceful and articulate defenders of the Constitution’s constraints on executive war powers. Now that they’re pulling the trigger, they seem to have had a radical change of heart.”

Some have suggested that the President has 60 days before he must go to Congress, but I believe that is only if the action is defensive in nature, protecting the U.S. From the relevant law:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The President has not answered the question of what statutory authority he has to continue the war in Libya. If he argued that under the treaty establishing the U.N. there was a humanitarian duty, then fine. But he did not so argue. He has run away from the discussion. I believe that the Congress should force the issue. Here is the relevant passage from the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Now that these civilians are secure, what is the legal basis for continued military strikes? The enforcement of a no-fly zone? Not really, because if there are no flights, then there should be no action. Even if the U.S. has "a supporting role" we are still involved in war making.

The second issue is a defect in logic. He has stated that Gaddafi must go, but in tonight's speech he states:

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

However, the actions on the ground indicate that we are in fact engaging in regime change. Unlike Egypt, where there is a professional military to maintain order and help the transition to democracy, Libya appears headed towards a protracted civil war, with the U.N. and NATO taking the side of the rebels. There is no way to keep those events under control. However, a protracted civil war, in which both sides settle into more fixed areas of control may actually work in our favor, by giving us time to assess the nature of the rebellion.

In fact, the President's actions could all be seen in a more favorable light if he would just ask the Congress for authorization. If the Congress authorized the limited combat role the President outlined, I could even be persuaded to support such a resolution.

Self Congratulations? Among California Republicans?

This is an "inside politics" post that most regular readers may want to ignore, cross posted from sdrostra.

Yesterday, on sdrostra.com, Jim Sills congratulated Tony Krvaric on his election to the Vice Chairmanship of the California Republican party. I do not dispute that San Diego will have more influence in the state party as a result, but I take exception to the self-congratulatory description of the 2010 election results in San Diego. Many of the touted successes were officially non-partisan. More importantly, the GOP made absolutely no progress in taking seats in the State Senate or Assembly, including in San Diego districts. This should be seen as a bitter disappointment when compared to GOP results nationwide. As a Republican, if only for three years, I believe we should set our sights higher, much higher. 2010's election returns in California should be seen as a abject failure, which should result in soul searching and prompting a sense of crisis for our party. I hope Mr. Krvaric will bring such a sense of urgency to his new office.

Libya and Obama

I am loathe to comment on foreign policy and the conduct of war on this blog because it has not been central to the themes I wish to espouse. However, we must remember the centrality of war to the state and the fact that war has been used throughout history to expand its power.

Sun Tzu in the "Art of War," in the section titled Laying Plans writes:

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
5. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
6. 
   
7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.
8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.
9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

With regards to the situation in Libya, it is now clear that the effort has crossed the line into war. The President is undermining the constitution by failing to make an account of the effort and his failure to invoke the War Powers Act. He has sacrificed a virtue that was important to his election, a pledge to conduct war making in an above board manner consistent with the constitution. Obama has therefore de-legitimized his claim to moral authority. He claimed during the campaign that he showed the good judgment to be against, that was, in his words,

A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

We must ask how the war in Libya differs?

Here is what the War Powers Resolution (I have been calling it the War Powers Act) states:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Clearly, our involvement in Libya has proceeded to a level which falls within the meaning of this law. Speaker Boehner should call upon the President to seek the authorization for the actions he is taking. Otherwise, the Republicans should enjoin the Department of Defense from funding the operations in Libya in the next budget bill.

Freedom Coalition Update - 2011 UPDATE

I started this blog in November of 2008 in the hope that it would become part of a broader movement to effect a real change in the Republican Party. At the time, I viewed the election of Barack Obama as a largely preventable mistake that I laid at the doorstep of an unprincipled Republican party dedicated to pork and its own re-election. Despite my dislike of the President-elect, it occurred to me that the public had made a rational choice. Given two parties dedicated to big government, one should vote for the one that seemed less corrupt, less hypocritical about their belief and less likely to favor corporations over average folks. At the time there was no real opposition, leading me to conclude that only a Republican party truly dedicated to limited government and freedom could restore balance. I thought the effort would take years, but the emergence of the Tea Party so soon after I started blogging vastly lifted my spirits. I have a saying about the seemingly spontaneity of many people coming to the same conclusion at the same time, "Circumstances and logic prescribe a narrow set of solutions."

This post is an update, with changes highlighted in blue.

UPDATE: In the comments, John Hitchcock points out that the more insidious reason that earmarks are poison is that they buy votes that go towards ever more massive budgets. I was previously aware of this phenomena, but had forgotten. I am updating the agenda in red. I wish to thank John for his help, so check out his eminently readable Common Sense Political Thought.

In my experience, being right on the issues isn't enough, one's coalition must pick issues that are winners and that capture the public imagination.

The Republican party was founded as the party of freedom, but by 2006 they were identified as the party of big government. I therefor propose this Freedom Coalition agenda to get the party back on track. I hope the Republicans adopt a true freedom agenda, if they don't, they won't get my vote. As with any agenda, this will change with circumstances and I will update it periodically.

FREEDOM COALITION AGENDA 2011

• Defeat Government Take Over of Health Care. This is our signature issue today. We must defeat the current Democrat/Socialist plan, but we also have a plan of our own. We have shamelessly taken much of John Mackey's program and adopted it as our own. (Paul Ryan (R-WI) has also adopted elements of this plan.) We should further make every effort to repeal the so-called Health Care Reform act. That includes outright attempts as well as incremental efforts as well as court challenges when it is clear the act has violated constitutional principles.
  

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.
   
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
   
3. Allow competition across state lines.
   
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
   
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
   
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
   
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

• Smaller Government and Reform. These issues go hand in glove. The public loathes the sight of big business getting handout in the form of bailouts, subsidies and tax code preferences. Removing earmarks, even if they are only part of the problems of bloat, will go a long way to restoring fiscal sanity. This is because earmarks are used to prime the pump of budgeting excess buying off the Congressman and blackmailing them with voting against a little local pork. They see the Congress get loads of campaign contributions and rightly conclude that the money is buying access that tilts the playing field, at best; or is buying Congressman at worst. Smaller government means less goodies to hand out. A reform agenda to end earmarks, end subsidies (even for ethanol) and simplify the tax code removes the incentives for business to try to buy the votes of the Congress. I can't find the original quote, but I remember Steve Forbes saying, "If you have a vermin problem in your kitchen, you can set traps and board up holes, but sooner or later your going to have to remove the cake from under the sink."
  

• Reduce Spending to Reduce the Deficit. This is simple economics, with government sucking up all of the present and future resources of the country, it is a beast that sucks the life blood of credit, resources and talent from the businesses, large and small, that are the economic engine of this country. Unfortunately, this means that we have to tackle entitlement reform. Neither party has been serious about this. Looking at the graph below, we see that mandatory spending is about equal to all of the tax receipts of the federal government.
  
• 
• Reform State and Local Government Employee Pensions. These pensions are bankrupting governments below the federal level. The total unfunded obligation is $1.5 trillion. The right of contract enshrined in the constitution makes this a tough nut to crack, but every governor, legislator, mayor and city council member should be judged on the seriousness of their approach to this issue.
  

• Reform Financial Regulation. The last recession wasn't caused by free market excess, but by too much government. Banks and insurers concluded they were too big to fail (TBTF) and called government's bluff. Many of them should have been allowed to fail. Further, as the big banks increase their market share, we demand that they carry higher percentage reserves, so that they won' fail. We call for an end to taxpayer subsidized speculation in the financial sector. We demand transparency in all things financial, including the pricing of assets. We call for an end to political interference that turned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into political vehicles to turn loans into votes. We call for an end to speculation with taxpayer insured deposits. We call on the Federal Reserve to open its books for inspection by the Congress that created it as well as the American people.

• Champion Freedom of Speech. We oppose campaign finance reform that protects incumbents and vested interests. Ultimately, these laws abridge free speech. There are so many examples of small groups harassed by monied opponents when they seek to organize to protect their rights. In Colorado, some neighbors who didn't want to be annexed by another city held some bakes sales to raise money for signs and ended being fined thousands of dollars. See Sampson v. Coffman. We also oppose campus speech codes that are intended to silence any point of view except the prevailing leftist orthodoxy. See FIRE article. This issue is a winner because Americans have long rejected the claim that others can tell us how to think and what we can say, especially when it comes to politics. Although they aren't happy about money in politics, it is easy to demonstrate that opposition to free speech isn't the answer. More on the right answer below.

• Oppose Eminent Domain abuse. Originally, the concept of eminent domain was meant to prevent individual property owners from holding the government hostage when building a road or other public good. Over time, this right of government morphed into the power to seize your land at the behest of the powerful for any reason, however flimsy. This view was challenged in Kelo vs. New London, but our side lost on a 5-4 decision, one of the most unjust outcomes since Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Fortunately, the appalling sight of the powerful and well connected preying on small business owners and individuals is fueling a backlash. But eminent domain abuse continues and this remains a powerful issue for our side. Here is an example of a hard fought victory n Long Branch, NJ, where officials want to replace middle class households with upper class ones. Frequently, the victims of this abuse are poor minorities. In this case a victorious homeowner was also presented an award from the NAACP. This is real outreach on issues that affect minorities that would benefit the GOP.

• Support School Choice. We could continue this outreach by taking on the school choice issue at full tilt. I previously blogged where the Arizona school teachers union wants to take away the ability of special needs kids to get much needed educational help through a voucher program. I think the Democrats are VERY vulnerable on this issue. School choice is the real civil rights issue of our day. Bad schools are wrecking the chances of poor and predominately minority students of being successful in college. Even the liberal University of California agrees with me that minorities are educationally disadvantaged. Interestingly, even though the academic literature on the benefits of choice are somewhat mixed, it seems to be that the greatest beneficiaries of school choice seem to be the urban poor. Further, as we experiment with choice we will find the combination of programs and incentives that really work. Interestingly, opposition to school choice is one of the stated reasons for the fleebagging in Indiana.
  

• Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in all its forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner. We especially decry the pathetic kow-towing to dictatorship in our own hemisphere in the shameful treatment of Honduras by the Obama administration. Recent events prove the wisdom of this approach, I think.
  

• Oppose Partial-Birth Abortions. Because the practice is as odious and repugnant as the name suggests. Americans can viscerally understand this issue. How can it be legal to kill a baby 8 months into a pregnancy when that same child if delivered, would be afforded full protection of the law? It is illogical, and even though I am a Christian and hold all human life sacred, I don't have to rest my case on theological arguments. One need only talk to an abortion survivor to understand the horror of this procedure. I blogged about the politics of this issue here.

So that's my proposal. Short, but I hope substantive. I welcome your comments, disagreements, additions and satire.

B-Daddy

Weekend Music Chill

Given our locale this weekend, I wanted to repeat a post of some music that reminded me of this amazing location in California.

More on the Theme of Leadership

Dean reports that Obama is not ready to lead, based on his own recorded words, and is giving new meaning to the word "punt." Social security is the subject.

Meanwhile, Peggy Noonan has the quote of the week regarding Obama's leadership or something, jaunting to Brazil while the nation's armed forces are engaged in "kinetic military action." Which is ok, I guess, since that means were not at war, in a Humpty-Dumpty sort of way. Here is the quote:

I cannot for the life of me see how an American president can launch a serious military action without a full and formal national address in which he explains to the American people why he is doing what he is doing, why it is right, and why it is very much in the national interest.

Kinetic action of the Samba variety, simultaneous to the other kind.

Programming Note

We will be out at Joshua Tree tomorrow and through the weekend, so blogging, if any will be of the "re-heated" variety. No cell phone coverage, at least there wasn't last time, so this will be a blessed break from the on line world.

San Diego Watchdogging

Dave Maass, at City Beat, gets in on the local watchdog action with his report of how County Supervisor Ron Roberts and Carlsbad City Councilwoman Ann Kulchin treat the San Diego Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) like their own personal slush fund. (My words, not Dave's). The fund was established in the 1990s to build out and maintain the system of freeway call boxes through a $1 vehicle tax. Of course, since the call box system is fully built and maintenance is low, the excess monies should be returned to the taxpayers. Sure it is, not. Here are the money paragraphs, literally.

Kulchin and Roberts control the purse strings as a two-vote majority on a three-person budget committee—a group treated to homemade lasagna at each meeting by Eddie Castoria [pictured above], SD SAFE’s privately contracted executive director.

Castoria used to manage the call-box program as a county employee until SD SAFE privatized the system. Castoria formed his own company, TeleTran Tek, and won the contract. SD SAFE paid his company $405,000 in 2010 and plans to increase his rate 2 percent each year until it reaches $478,000 in 2017. In addition, Castoria also picks up hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting contracts from other county SAFEs.

The lasagna is really my favorite part of the whole article.

To her credit, District 6 Council member, Lorie Zapf has gone public with her objections to the waste of your car tax dollars.






Meanwhile, in an update from Sunday's U-T Watchdog recap, the county pension system was embarrassed into reviewing its investment in Mississippi timber venture.

The county pension system will revisit a $50 million investment in a Mississippi timber venture because board members were not told about two business partnerships their own fund adviser has with the wood-harvesting company.

Brian White (pictured below) had initially stated that no review was needed, but reversed field shortly after the U-T Watchdog published their initial article.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com.

The True Story of the Auto Bailouts

As we move towards the 2012 election, Obama will probably say of his Republican opponent that he or she would have opposed or did oppose the auto maker bailout plan. I should hope that this would be true, but we need to educate the public about the truth of how the bailouts of GM and Chrysler have been colossal failures that harmed the economy and the rule of law. Todd Zywicki, writing in National Affairs, has the whole story, here are some excerpts:

The bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler have been held up by President Obama and his supporters as a great success story — proof that, by working together, government and business can save jobs and strengthen the economy. But this popular narrative is dangerously misleading. Far from a success story, the events surrounding the bailouts offer a cautionary tale of executive overreach. And their example clarifies the Obama administration's broader approach to economic policy — an approach that is both harmful to economic growth and dangerous to the rule of law.
. . .
The bailouts of GM and Chrysler at the end of 2008 — and the extension of those bailouts in the beginning of 2009 — were therefore both unnecessary and very likely illegal. But that was hardly the end of the story.
. . .
At first, the fact that the companies' creditors (and especially Chrysler's creditors, who were so badly mistreated) put up with such terms and waived their property rights seems astonishing. But it becomes less so — and sheds more light on how this entire process imperils the rule of law — when one considers the enormous leverage the federal government had over most of these creditors. Many of Chrysler's secured-bond holders were large financial institutions — several of which had previously been saved from failure by TARP.
. . .
Every piece of the "success story" of the auto bailout would thus seem to be in error. The bailout was not absolutely necessary and was pursued by means of dubious legality; the bankruptcies were highly irregular and inefficient; and the companies that have emerged from bankruptcy are far from lean and fit. They are certainly in no position to repay taxpayers for the generous loans they were given.

The whole thing is worth a read. Get educated and get ready.

Libyan War Powers

As operations in Libya drag on, the President's lawyers have taken the position that the action in Libya is "not a war" that would require the consent of Congress under the constitution and the war powers act. There is some historical merit to this claim, in the opinion of Volokh.com writer Ilya Somin. However, I also fully agree that if operations do not end soon, the President will be in violation of the law. The only reasonable justification for the action is humanitarian defense of innocent civilians. Once that aim is achieved, the U.S. must withdraw, or the President go to Congress to obtain war powers.

Exit question: How will and how should Republicans vote if Obama asks for war powers for Libya? Don't answer all at once, because I think this is a tricky political question. I'll put my answer in the comments.

Meanwhile in Indiana

Little reported upon or even remarked upon, Indiana's Democrat legislators have fled the state, imitating their Wisconsin brethren (H/T Roger). How can this be good for the brand name of the Democrat party? The Indiana Democrats have enough votes to deny the Republicans a quorum to vote on any legislation. What makes this situation different from Wisconsin is that the Democrats are protesting the entire Republican agenda. Roger Hedgecock pointed out that the Democrats are playing with fire, because the state budget expires on June 30. Without a budget, I'm not sure what government services will be shut down, but no doubt there will be a big impact.

Roger Hedgecock characterized the walk out as hostage taking and I tend to agree. The Republicans need to hold firm. If the Democrats cause the state government to shut down because they denied a quorum, I am certain the voters will blame them.

The key issues have to do with keeping unions coffers full with paycheck deductions and maintaining project labor agreements. There is no issue of principle at work here. Democrats want to make sure that unions get dues funded by deductions required by government. Republicans should be applauded for giving workers more choice and local government more choice to get lower prices on projects.

The other key issue is over private school vouchers. Why do Democrats hate this? It means fewer public school teachers paying dues to fund Democrat candidates. It's about political power, pure and simple.

But how about a little sympathy for the fleebaggers?

The Indiana Democrats say life on the lam hasn't been enjoyable. There is one washing machine at the hotel and there are lines to use it. It has rained for almost a month, keeping them indoors except for an occasional walk past strip malls and chain stores. Three have developed sinus infections. After an initial wave of support and visits across state lines from union members and supporters, they have been largely isolated. "We're busy but we're bored," said Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson.

My heart bleeds. Not.

Exit question, why don't these legislators consider how it will feel eventually they have the majority? Majorities in American politics aren't permanent, after all.