Yay!

Iran is now running 7,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, a senior official said on Thursday, an announcement likely to increase Western concerns about the Islamic Republic’s disputed nuclear plans.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, also said it had obtained the technology to produce more “accurate” centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium.

Referring to the inauguration of a nuclear fuel production plant by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier on Thursday, he said in a televised speech: “Today we praise … the accomplishment of the last stage of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

But sleep easy: Russia has assured us that Iran is not a threat.

During the Iraq liberation war debate, I laughed at liberals when they compared the conflict to the Vietnam war.  It was a ridiculous, defeatist talking point.  What is actually an accurate comparison to the Vietnam war, is the current conflict in Afghanistan.  Although there are geopolitical differences between the two conflicts, the many similarities are striking and unless we change our strategic goals in Afghanistan, we may be facing the same military and political legacy that we faced in the war the baby-boom generation fought on our behalf.      

The United States must downgrade their peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan and combat efforts in Pakistan, and focus on training the Afghan National Army and stabilizing Afghanistan’s central government.  As history has proven, there is no clear end to the military conflict with the Pashtuns (western governments and the media refer to the Taliban as a political and cultural movement, but in essence, the Taliban is a tribal group called the Pashtuns).  Foreign powers and central governments propped up by foreign powers have been fighting the Pashtuns during the entire Afghan modern era.  Adding to the confusion over Afghan history and the current military conflict is the fact that the Pashtuns do not recognize the border with Pakistan.  A border created by the British government and local monarchs. 

In 2001, when US led forces invaded Afghanistan, the United States transferred power of the central government to the Northern Alliance.  The ethnic make-up of this group consisted almost exclusively of minority groups, such as Tajiks, Hazaras and the Uzbeks.  We repeated the same mistake that was made by foreign powers over the last 170 years, when we stripped economic, political and cultural power from the majority Pashtuns, in place of pro-western/secularist Afghans.  No nation can expect long-term stability and economic growth when the ethnic minority controls control nearly all of the political power.           

Since the 1830′s, Pashtuns have fought three Anglo-Afghan wars, deposed secularist monarchs, and fought the Soviets and the Soviet-backed Northern Alliance, and now a two-front war with the United States/NATO and the secular Pakistani government.  In all cases, the Pashtuns have either achieved military victory, or victory through appeasement (peace agreements), which eventually allowed them to gain power through the take-over of cultural and civic institutions.  The most recent example occurred just recently in the Pakistan Province of Swat, where the Taliban (Pashtuns) gained political control through a political agreement with the central government (the Pashtuns then overturned an election by forcing out democratically elected Provincial politicians, by placing bounties on their families).  This may be one reason why western powers are so hesitant to negotiate a peace agreement with the Pashtuns.  Although many Pashtun sects are considered ‘moderate’, there is no doubt that a peace agreement will again lead to the slow take over of Afghanistan by extreme anti-American Pashtun leaders.  If this takes place, we will witness Afghanistan return to pre-2001 political conditions that created a safe-haven for al-Qaeda.     

Since a military victory and peace agreement is out of the question, what policy position should the Obama administration adopt to ensure our military forces are not engaged in another ‘Vietnam’? 

Understanding that Afghanistan will never become completely politically stable and free from the violence of the most extreme Pashtun groups, our only hope for a ‘victory’ is to ensure the central government in Kabul is capable of exercising effective control over most of the country.  Especially control over security and the border with Pakistan.  President Obama has hinted at a similar policy, by stating that he is willing to negotiate with moderate elements of the Pashtun tribe, but his recent actions contradict these previously made assertions.  His focus seems to be entirely a militarily one, as he continues to increase troop levels, deploying them exclusively to conflict areas of Afghanistan.  We have heard little in the way of increased foreign aid, new methods for battling corruption and the drug trade (the drug trade funds the Pashtun resistance) and stepping up training for civil servants and senior bureaucrats.

I had held out hope that the new administrations Afghan strategy would be similar to President Nixon’s Vietnam strategy, of using military means to force your opponent to the bargaining table while simultaneously preparing the local government for political and security self-sustainment.  What we are facing, is an inexperienced President, fearful of creating political waves, who is allowing our allies to withdrawal from Afghanistan while taking the focus and funding off of stabilizing the central government in Kabul. 

If we continue with the current Pashtun policy, we will be facing further destabilization in Pakistan and an ugly guerrilla war in southern and eastern Afghanistan, fought exclusively between the United States and the Pashtun tribes. 

By 2012, the media may cease with their comparisons of the Obama and F.D.R. administrations and start to equate this new White House with that of former President Johnson.           

The Charlotte Observer, Tar Heel House Democrats and their useful Republican idiot allies against private property rights are losing their war against tobacco they thought they had won after last fall’s election results.

The proposed ban on smoking in restaurants and other businesses is now in the hands of the N.C. Senate, where it has the support of the powerful Democratic leader.

“My take would be that, yes, we would pass it,” Marc Basnight, the Senate’s president pro tem, said yesterday.

But the bill’s fate is far from clear, because it faces new opposition from the state’s restaurant owners, who are angry over an amendment to the bill that occurred in the N.C. House.

Until this week, the N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association had stayed on the sidelines. The group agreed to remain neutral as long as the smoking ban applied evenly to all restaurants and bars. The original bill, sponsored by state Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson, would have done that.

But on Wednesday, some House members successfully passed an amendment that carved out an exception for establishments that are restricted to people 18 or older.

As a practical matter, the amendment would let age-restricted bars and nightclubs continue to allow smoking.

But restaurants would have to prohibit indoor smoking — or, if they wanted to allow smoking, they would have to restrict their clientele to adults only.

“It no longer presents a level playing field,” said Paul Stone, the president and CEO of the restaurant association.

It seems that the North Carolina House didn’t get the memo about caring enough about the health of children in private clubs, much less adults anywhere, if you believe the local dead-tree Drive-by media’s latest crocodile tearjerker about second-hand smoke:

Over the years the legislature first banned smoking in its chambers, then in its own buildings, and finally in all state buildings. Thus state employees are protected, and so are citizens who visit state buildings.

But elsewhere in the state,citizens and workers are not protected from the ill effects of smoke. Rep. Hugh Holliman’s bill would have done so by banning smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Holliman told his colleagues his bill was about a health issue – and not about private property or personal freedoms. His proposal not only banned smoking in workplaces and public places indoors, but also would allow local governments to adopt stricter smoking controls.

But when the House began work on the bill Wednesday, legislators were more eager to protect the ability of current smokers to light up than they were to protect the public, including workers, from smoke. The House approved Rep. Nelson Cole’s amendment to allow restaurants and bars to allow smoking if those businesses banned admission or employment to those younger than 18. That significantly weakened the bill for nonsmokers and workers over 18 in those places. That amendment also turned the state’s restaurant association against the bill, because family restaurants would have trouble competing with most bars for customers.

The House approved another amendment Thursday to exempt private nonprofit clubs from the law. That means workers there, and nonsmokers and their children who attend functions there – will also absorb smoke into their bodies and potentially suffer the consequences at some time in their lives.

Where to begin, and you will excuse my glee, as I pointed out many, many moons ago over many peace pipes that if the issue were really dangers over second-hand smoke, the Observer, Holliman and all the mob-like crusaders, for aesthetically preferred restaurants paid for out of the fruits of labor of the restaurant owners, would simply require that employers offer workers masks to wear while in a smokey atmosphere, much like the requirements for textile workers and coal miners.

The zealots long ago toned down their wailing about the health of customers given that the market has provided numerous eating choices in non-smoking environments.

So they concentrate their efforts with “do it for the children” and “protect the workers.”

Yet, they seem to care more about having a waiter not be dressed like a bank robber (Jesse James, pictured, safe from second-hand smoke than the lungs of the masked garcon.

The fact is that it is the anti-smoking zealots that are the robbers, i,e, robbers of the fruits of others’ labor.

But of course the issue has never been about threats to health from second-hand smoke. Common sense tells you, as well as recent studies, that when a substance takes 50 years to kill you when you suck 20 thru a straw everyday, it would take hundreds of years of breathing it in at one part per billions.

Our founding fathers, many of whom were tobacco farmers, considered the right to private property to be indispensable to Liberty. Restaurants and bars are the private property of people that worked hard for the fruits of their labor to build a business.

Yet, the anti-smoking mob, with plenty of anti-smoking choices for their dining pleasure, deign to demand that all restaurants and bars cater to their air quality preferences.

Well, we defeated such a mob called the British over 200 years ago. And we did it for the children!

Originally published at Examiner.com which includes additional info and links

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Michael Steele asked to be allowed to speak at the Tea Party scheduled for Chicago next Wednesday. They rejected the request.

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m not in the Steele-basher camp, though I’ve been disappointed by his performance to date, but I think this might be a good tactical move by the Tea Party people — making clear that it is not a partisan movement.

On the other hand, the Washington Tea Party has given a speaking slot to … Alan Keyes! What the hell were they thinking? He’s almost guaranteed to say something totally crazy (e.g., that Obama’s not a natural-born citizen) and discredit the movement.

Oh well, that’s the nature of genuinely grass-roots things where no one is really in charge and each group is free to take its own path. Since the MSM has mostly ignored it to date, I just hope that the first time it’s brought to public attention isn’t with Alan Keyes.

…but this time it is smart politics. 

Mitt Romney is calling for the passing of an immigration reform bill during President Obama’s first term in office. 

According to The Hill:

Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.” The article also quotes Romney as saying, “We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters.”

As per Boston.com: 

I want to start this post by stating that I am sympathetic to many socially-conservative positions.  I oppose same sex marriages (though I favor civil unions), I believe abortion should be HEAVILY restricted (only a rape and life or serious health issue of the mother, with further restrictions on rape), and I have absolutely no problem with displays that are significantly religious being placed in prominent public locations.  I’m against federal funding of stem cell research.  I am for legalizing several drugs and prostitution, but only because I feel the damage done to our society by the illegal trade is greater than the damage from it being legal (consider the power of the drug cartels.

All that said. I will not hold federal candidates to all, or even most, of these positions. In fact, I could easily see myself voting for a candidate that held none of these positions, even if his opponent held all of them.  Do I just not care about them?  Do I not realize the damage done to our society by the overall permissiveness and free-for-all evolution of our culture over the last several decades?  Do I like the fact that we, as a society, can’t leave our doors unlocked at night because of the degradation of our humanity that has occurred?  The answer to all of those is a resounding “No!”  The reason is because the electorate as a whole doesn’t value these things.

I can hear the argument now.  “Richard, you don’t know what you’re talking about!  Look at California!  Here’s an overwhelmingly liberal state (they voted for Pres Obama over Sen McCain by some 24%), yet also passed a state initiative banning same sex marriages!”  If this is your argument, and you don’t realize why this statement validates, not refutes, my point, consider this.  Pres Obama made NO secret of his social views (very liberal), and Sen McCain has about as solid a socially conservative record as you could hope for (ok, he supports stem cell research, but aren’t socons somewhat split on this issue?).  For Sen McCain to trail Proposition 8 by about 30% tells me that Proposition 8, while most Californians agree with it, is NOT an issue you can run as your main issue and win.

This is a double-edged sword in national elections.  On the positive side, a candidate’s stance on socon issues will NOT be the reason he loses an election.  If the electorate doesn’t highly prioritize an issue, what difference will it make to them which side you take?  We don’t need to be afraid of a candidate holding strong pro-life positions, and opposing same sex marriage.  On the down side, however, it means a candidate’s stance on socon issues will NOT be the reason he WINS an election.  In fact, if the electorate feels the candidate cares more about socon issues than, say, the economy, they will assume the candidate doesn’t know/care about the economy, and will vote for the other candidate by default.

There is another fact to consider, however.  The GOP has socon values written into the party platform, even if not all members support those values.  The Democrats, however, stand firmly AGAINST socon values.  If Republicans regain control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, there is a much higher probability that values legislation will at least be debated in Congress, while the exact opposite is the case if, as now, Democrats control everything.  I’d much rather vote in a Republican who didn’t share my values, but will vote in leadership who does, than a Democrat who shares my values, but will vote in leadership who doesn’t.

Put simply, the only way to get socon legislation even considered, much less passed, in DC is to NOT insist on strict adherence to it by every Republican.  Counter-intuitive, I know, but it’s the reality of politics.  Purging the party of “heretics” is a certain way to make sure we see more abortion rights, federal mandating of churches to perform same sex marriage, condom machines in prominent locations in high schools (with “How To” pamphlets in stands next to it), and so on.  Ask youself if “purity of party” is worth the price of losing ground on the issues you hold dear.

Today, Bobby Jindal outlined a proposal for fiscal reform in Louisiana:

“It is critical that we roll up our sleeves now,” he said during a press conference at the LITE Center, “and immediately begin the hard work that must be done to streamline our government and make government more efficient, so we can better protect critical services such as health care and higher education.”

He will propose five major reforms to the upcoming legislative session.

The first is a new funding formula for higher education.

The second is creating a commission to look at downsizing state government.

Third, he will propose civil service reforms to eliminate “bumping,” reduce job classifications and tie merit increases to performance and reviews.

The fourth major reform focuses on fiscal reforms, including automatic “sunsets” for dedicated funds beginning July 1, 2010.

Finally, Jindal proposes changes to statutory dedications that will allow cuts to agencies other than higher education and health care.

I like what I see here.  Performance-based compensation for government employees and funding for universities have become long overdue.  Under Jeb Bush’s watch, Florida effectively utilized sunset programs as a means to cut government waste and inefficiency (FL has the lowest number of state gov. employees per capita in the country).  If Jindal can implement these changes, he’ll add to his already impressive resume.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claims that the Obama administration covered up a study on the achievements of the D.C. voucher program.  Couple this offense with the administration’s blatant disregard for the positive strides taken by voucher programs in Florida (another Jeb accomplishment), and one cannot help but wonder what Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan meant when they championed setting aside politics and doing “what works”…

By the way, we had posts about Republicans and urban issues a couple weeks ago.  Perhaps this tidbit from the article cited above could help with a particularly important urban issue?:

Most remarkable [with Florida's voucher program] has been minority student progress. While the percentage of white third-graders reading at or above grade level has increased to 78% from 70% in 2001, the percentage among Hispanic third-graders has climbed from 46% to 61%, and among blacks from 36% to 52%. Graduation rates for Hispanic students have increased from 52.8% before the program started to 64% today; and for black students from 48.7% to 57.3%. Minority schoolchildren are not making such academic strides anywhere else.

The New York Times reports that Obama plans to add immigration legislation to his list of priorities for this year:

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

Some White House officials said that immigration would not take precedence over the health care and energy proposals that Mr. Obama has identified as priorities. But the timetable is consistent with pledges Mr. Obama made to Hispanic groups in last year’s campaign.

If Obama really does bring this issue to the forefront, it will likely cause an uproar among many Republicans.  Unfortunately, I fear that a nasty debate over the issue, like we saw in 2007, could have negative long-term consequences for the GOP; by driving away Latino voters with harsh rhetoric and becoming viewed as obstructionists to immigration reform, we risk losing the support of a rapidly growing demographic whose social views largely fall in line with the party platform.  Regardless, it wouldn’t surprise me if we see a familiar face reach out to the President in the name of bipartisanship and cooperate on whatever bill emerges from the deliberations.

James Pethokoukis hits the nail on the head with this Capital Commerce entry:

The NYTimes buried this interesting little facoid from their poll on people’s current economic attitudes: “Mr. Obama’s push to increase income taxes on people making over $250,000 a year was supported by 74 percent of respondents. When presented with the possibility that taxing those in the higher income bracket might hurt the economy, 39 percent of those polled still backed the plan.”

Me: This is why it is important that people understand the complex linkages between taxes and economic growth. Framing tax cuts merely as a way of giving consumers more dough to spend is self-defeating in the long run.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I was relieved that Alex’s post did not encourage the GOP to tap into the wealthy and growing gay-American community to match Obama’s fundraising prowess, by embracing gay marriage and dressing our candidates in pastel colors.  (j/k Knepper)

* Alex missed the purpose of my post, which was not about the ability of the prospective candidate to match Obama’s fundraising during the lengthy campaign, but to be able to immediately respond during the initial weeks of the contest.  Obama will begin with a massive war chest and has history has proven, a sitting President’s campaign can implant a negative (and permanent) impression of the opposing candidate in the minds of voters.  Kerry and Dole were not able to overcome this strategy.  James Carville and Karl Rove knew (know) this.   

* Michael Steele should build a mega-fundraising machine, not our prospective candidate.  Our prospective candidate may not have the time to do this.  I agree we can be #1 again, but not since 1964 has a Republican candidate built a fundraising machine around small donors.  The GOP has/is about large donors and we must focus on overturning McCain-Feingold.  We need to build-up our 527′s to counter Soros and the liberal interest groups, as this will be half the battle in 2012.  Many supporters of conservative 527′s sat the last election out. 

* I must admit, I am a tad bit confused by Alex’s notion that Jindal is the leading candidate, can match Obama’s fundraising capabilities and his belief that Romney’s chances are ‘dubious’.  What evidence is there to support the claims?  Romney has an excellent chance in 2012, although it may be difficult for him to defeat Palin and her millions of supporters.  Jindal has a long way to go to prove he belongs in the sandbox with the big girls and boys.  Jindal’s rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union address did more to impact Jindal’s chances in 2016, then any of his recent political and legislative successes in Louisiana.           

“It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was sing-songy. He was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish”

* I must confess that I’m a tad bit confused by Kristofer’s post proclaiming that Romney may be our only chance. He first asserts that Romney’s bank account of $250 million may be the only thing that can save us from defeat, and then goes onto proclaim in the comments section that Obama will likely raise $2.5 billion and that Palin could keep pace with that. If Obama will raise that much, Romney’s account looks middling, and if Palin can keep pace, then why say that Romney may be our only hope?

* The assertion that Obama will raise $2.5 billion is utterly preposterous. He raised $1 billion this past year, and doubling that would be an absolutely mind-boggling feat. Attempt to wrap your mind around that figure: $1 billion. It’s not an easily-doubled figure, like $10 million. One can’t just build an additional billion-dollar fundraising base because they feel like it. In fact, I would venture that if one didn’t donate to Obama in 2008, the odds of his donating to Obama in 2012 are extremely slim.

* I’m not pleased with the implication that we should abandon all hope of building our own mega-fundraising machine centered around an exciting candidate and dynamic set of ideas. Why can’t we do that? 2008 was the first year that the Democrats bested the GOP, and it wasn’t exactly an accident that our boring candidate produced a large gap in a bad year for Republicans against a dynamic young candidate. We can be #1 again. No need to give up at the starting gate.

* Not that I think that he’ll run (although I think that the nomination is his if he wants it), but Bobby Jindal could raise a lot of money, I believe. He’s just gotta be the guy that we see on Meet the Press rather than the guy we saw deliver the rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union address — which won’t be too difficult, I believe. Sarah Palin might be able to — through small donors — if she can also convince the big donors that she’s a serious candidate. Mitt Romney’s prospects are more dubious, as are Gingrich’s, and, of course, the lower-tier candidates.

Sometimes losing Presidential campaigns see their ideas co-opted, but rarely does it happen with a parody campaign.

In early 2008, the Creators of Attack of the Show had the brilliant idea of having some fun with the Presidential campaign, by having a fictional character run as a third party candidate, Cobra Commander the villain from GI Joe. Mostly Cobra’s campaign ripped off other people’s footage. They hit one home run in the whole bit, and it was a parody of the worshipful Barack Obama campaign anthem, “Yes, We Can” (which as you’ll recall, our humble President listed as one of his top ten favorite songs.)

The song had Cobra making outlandish Cartoonish proposals with sycophant fans singing the praises of each idea. Take this line from 1:31

Cobra: Yes we shall lord over Mother Nature with an iron fist, unleashing the one and only weather dominator creating floods and earthquakes the likes of which the world has never known.

Male Back-up: Never never never known.

Female Back-up: Never known.

What was so funny about the video is that all of these things were so far off the wall, only a mad man with a God complex or a Cartoon Character would ever seriously consider  something as absurd as trying to control the weather…

WASHINGTON — The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

Oh, crud.

I did notice that the whole Floods and Earthquakes provision isn’t in there yet.  Don’t worry, though. That’ll be snuck in at the last minute and congressmen will vote for it en masse-without reading it.*
*This post is satire. Some people are too clueless to realize.

It happened to John Kerry and Bob Dole and it may happen to the Republican nominee in 2012.  Once the nominee is chosen, she or he will face an unprecedented barrage of attack ads, virtually ending the campaign before it even begins.  Traditionally, challengers to sitting Presidents have had to focus on fundraising at the end of the primary season, instead of marketing themselves and their ideas.  This has always given to the advantage to the incumbent President.  Clinton and “W” used this to their advantage and it could be argued that money was the deciding factor in those two Presidential elections.    

Date: May 19, 1996: The Dole for President campaign said Saturday that, as of the beginning of May, it had spent all but $177,000 of the money it can legally use between now and the Republican National Convention in August.

The Dole campaign said it would generate additional money to spend during the primary season by selling assets such as computer and telephone equipment and television footage to the general election campaign, reaping another $1.2 million.

In fact, I expect President Obama and the DNC to take the ‘Gray Davis’ approach and interfere in the Republican primary.  The Obama campaign will advertise against the candidates they perceive as the front runners and they will attempt to create cultural and ideological wedges within the party.   

In the governor’s race, Republican Richard Riordan is accusing Democratic incumbent Gray Davis of hijacking today’s GOP primary. Davis ads, slamming the former Los Angeles mayor, have helped Riordan’s leading GOP rival, conservative businessman Bill Simon, become the unexpected front runner in that primary contest. Governor Davis, who’s running for a second term, does not face any major opposition in the Democratic primary.

So which of the prospective 2012 candidates have the resources to withstand a $100 million dollar barrage of attack ads, prior to the conventions?  The Michigan born, former Massachusetts governor, who is estimated to be worth as much as $250 million dollars .  Of course, Mitt Romney brings many other qualities to the candidacy, even though he faces as much internal party opposition as Senator McCain, but his ability to immediately counter the Obama attacks ads, may be the financial firewall Republican require to achieve victory in 2012.  As Jason Bonham pointed out to me last year, “what Mitt spent in the (2008) primary, he generates in interest each year”.  Jason, you are so correct.  Did anyone really believe those stories of Mitt’s children being concerned with their inheritance?

The Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell today that the mainstream media downplayed.

The US Electrical Grid was breached by cyber spies (operating in China and Russia) who left software that could have interrupted electrical service in the US.

You’d think this would galvanize the public to defend our nation but I sense indifference. I suppose a few thousand Americans dying from a  cyber attack is less showy than a few thousand Americans dying from terrorists flying into skyscrapers. A well-planned cyber attack can lead to just as many deaths as a terrorist attack.

Our water, sanitation, and electrical grid are all vulnerable to attack. What’s most frightening is that we can’t prove exactly who is attacking us. The companies that run our electrical grid didn’t even realize they had malware that could shut the grid down. US intelligence services picked up on that eventually.

China or Russia can always claim that some unknown hacker in their nation is taking America down. We couldn’t prove otherwise even though we know that hackers are unlikely to have the resources to run that sort of attack.

The volume of cyber attacks each day is massive. Cyber attacks have been targeting the Pentagon and the military for quite some time. Banks are also under an increasing volume of attacks.

Other nations have had their main ISPs brought down by concerted cyber attack. Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania and Estonia have all faced cyber attacks that crippled their internet service.

While funding for cyber defense is increasing I get the sense Americans are oblivious to the threat to our economy, to our safety and to our troops.

I can’t put it any better than the article already has itself. This is the sort of breathtaking inanity that occurs in social democracies:

Most kids complain bitterly when they are grounded. Some will sneak out, while others will settle for slamming doors and announcing that they hate the person making the rules. But sometimes, kids get creative when they’re punished: A 6th grader in Quebec sued her dad because she felt that his punishment was too harsh.

The 12-year-old girl’s parents are divorced; in the spring of 2008, the girl’s mom gave her permission to go on a class trip to Quebec City in June. But the middle-schooler lived with her father, and after she disobeyed daddy’s orders to stay off the Internet, he told her she couldn’t go. So what did she do? She took him to court. Of course.

A lower court ruled in favor of the girl, who went on the embattled class trip. Her father appealed — on principle – -and amazingly, the girl won again. The father’s attorney, Kim Beaudoin, says that her client is “flabbergasted” and they are considering another appeal, this time to Canada’s Supreme Court. But, the attorney adds, the father has no regrets about the court proceedings. “Either way, he doesn’t have authority over this child anymore. She sued him because she doesn’t respect his rules,” Beaudoin said. “It’s very hard to raise a child who is the boss.”

Stunning. It’s like something out of an awful dystopian novel or something.

Per Paul Streitz, the Buchananite who heads Draft Sarah 2012:

Statement from Meghan Stapleton, Palin Family Spokesperson

April 8, 2009

The continuing generosity of Alaskans and Americans is overwhelming as many reach out to assist Governor Sarah Palin and her family with their legal bills.

However, the official legal defense fund for Governor Sarah Palin has not been formed and the Governor cannot accept monies for those obligations from any other entity than the one in formation. Numerous federal and state laws need to be abided by and the official legal defense fund will have very strict donation guidelines.

We thank everyone interested in helping the Governor. The best way to assist her will be through this official fund which will launch later this month.

Woah!

My senior seminar is winding down- our paper’s are being written- and we’ve started to move into a kind of peer review phase. I was asked to look over a fellow classmate’s lit review, and give her my comments. Here was her topic: why don’t more Americans vote? She was very upset that, while almost all Europeans vote, fewer than 60% vote in a typical American presidential election. As I discussed the topic with her, something struck me: it never even occurred to her to ask if it was a bad thing that many Americans don’t vote.

So let me stake out controversial ground: I am glad ( though not for the reasons many reactionary conservatives might be) American elections, even with endless media hoopla, turn out only a fraction of the population. Before I go any further, let me make one thing abundantly clear: there are bad reasons not to vote. If Americans are staying home because they don’t have faith in the electoral process or because they don’t take seriously their privileges as citizens, we should all be concerned. But, I don’t think these are the primary culprits; after all, many European countries have voting malfunctions and poor civics classes.

To the extent that voting is not seen as a patriotic duty, it is an assertion of interests. The man who votes in an election, without any sense of contributing to a noble tradition, does so because he believes a lot rides on the outcome; he feels that his fortune hangs in the balance. From a conservative perspective, this is a dangerous viewpoint. When a man starts to believe that government control’s his fate, he forgets to control it himself. European countries don’t merely have higher voting rates; they have more political demonstrations. A politician proposes a law, and is suddenly accosted by a mob of rioters demanding his head: public sector employees stand resolutely against any modification of the welfare state.

When a man riots over the loss of handout, he stops looking for a leg-up. When politics reaches critical importance, it signals not the growth of a democracy, but its slow death. This all sounds very bad for those of us who spend hours a day refreshing the Corner, and silently (and sometimes not so silently) castigating the opposition party. Surely we’ve all gone mad. Well, not quite. I’m not involved in politics because I believe that conservative policies are desperately necessary; I believe that people are naturally conservative- that when left to their own devices, they’ll seek to make as much of their situation as possible, adopting all the values of industry, thrift, and self-reliance that are the foundation of conservatism. Conservatism is the default. I’m involved in politics because there are ways of thinking, and policies, that undermine that default setting and detach people from their actual lives, in ways that are unhealthy.

I confess, that if everyone shared my motivations, I’d be happy to see voting increase. But, if voting represents a proverbial cry for help, I’m glad that Americans- more than those in other countries, at any rate- still believe they can help themselves. In a world where friends split over political differences and men hold political rallies to keep public sector make-work, it’s nice to think that we still live in a country where people can vote or not vote, with the sense that, when they wake up their fate will be undetermined; that rosy innocence of indifference.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

I meant to post this yesterday – wasn’t able to – but it’s still a timely story and one that I have been working on since last Friday.

Anyway, there are a lot of strange and corrupt goings on at the University of California-San Diego, and the College Republicans need all the help they can get. I’m used to seeing these types of antics from Democrats, but never from fellow Republicans.

I’m pretty steamed about this, so expect to hear more about it in the future.

Pro-life advocates are celebrating the passage of Resolution 127 in the House Committee in the state of Tennessee, but it is still too early for anyone to be popping the corks just yet.

A bill that could lead to greater restrictions on abortions in Tennessee has cleared a House committee.

The measure would allow a change to the state’s constitution to nullify a State Supreme Court ruling in 2000.

That ruling voided many restrictions on abortions.

The bill could be up for a full House vote in just two weeks.

A companion bill has already passed in the full Senate.

The proposal would have to pass this session and again in the next General Assembly before it could go before voters in 2014.

Jeff Woods, while taking the pro-choice positon, explains further (HT to Kleinheider):

Once SJR127 clears the Senate again, probably next Monday, so what? It still has to make it through the House. Then in the next General Assembly, it has to pass both chambers by a two-thirds majority. It couldn’t go on the ballot until 2014, and it would take a majority of voters to strip abortion rights out of the state constitution. And then after all that … abortion still will be legal in Tennessee thanks to Roe v. Wade.

If the state constitution is amended, pro-lifers can start passing laws to whittle away at the right. They can try to force women to look at ultrasounds or obtain death certificates for fetuses. Or they can order physicians to read scary scripts on the evils of abortion to their patients. But federal courts surely would strike down those laws. A waiting period is the worst restriction that might withstand a court test. A parental consent law already is on the books here. So we’d wind up almost exactly where we were before all this started at the beginning of the decade when the state Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist.

There is doubt that this will ever pass completely, and if it did, it would be years before it would be written into law.

While it is a victory that the bill has made it farther than it ever has before, I wouldn’t be joyously celebrating this early, as it still has a long way to go.

Even LifeNews has kept it’s enthusiasm under wraps:

A favorable vote for the amendment this year is just the beginning.

After getting a simple majority in the 2009-2010 session, lawmakers must then approve it by a two-thirds margin in the 2011-12 session and then voters would have a chance to consider it on the ballot in the 2014 election.

A vote to approve the amendment would follow a poll showing most state residents either want all abortions illegal or want abortions limited to very few circumstances.

The proposal says “nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.”

For a full explanation of the process, see this link.

Most people may have already heard about this, but the Vermont House of Representatives has passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage:

The Vermont House on Thursday passed a same-sex marriage bill by 95-52, which is not enough of a margin to override a veto promised by the governor.

…Last week, the bill passed the Senate 26-4.

A final House vote is slated for Friday, when the bill is to be sent back to the Senate for approval of changes in the legislation sought by the House, and then to the desk of Gov. James Douglas, whose threatened veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote.

That override vote could take place as soon as Tuesday, Robinson said.

As our own Tommy Boy has suggested, the GOP may have an opportunity to reshape its image by convincing a prominent Republican (Tommy has suggested Palin) respected by social conservatives to outline a compromise accepting civil unions with religious-conscience exceptions (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=1).

A Congressional Oversight Panel tasked to review the Treasury Department’s management of TARP funds has reported some scary conclusions:

Though some economic measures are improving, the financial crisis “is far from over” and “appears to be taking root in the larger economy.”

This, despite the government’s commitment to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on a massive bailout of the financial system.

…The panel reported that the government has spent, lent or set aside more than $4 trillion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Today, the “credit markets no longer face an acute systemic crisis in confidence that threatens the functioning of the economy,” the report said.

But, it said, the economy now faces an “apparently prolonged period of weakness” with regard to financial firms and lending.

It noted, for instance, that Citigroup and Bank of America received multiple injections of capital from the government while borrowing costs remain high for businesses and individuals. The panel also cited increasing numbers of home foreclosures and lower home prices as reasons for concern.

…Warren also criticized the Treasury for its lack of openness on its rescue efforts as it first began the TARP program last year.

“As Treasury started this program,” she said, “they really had the notion that they would spend the money the way they wanted, and not only were they not going to tell the public, I don’t think they were going to tell the Congressional Oversight Panel.”

The lack of transparency on the part of the Treasury Department shouldn’t surprise anyone.  How else would you expect an overloaded, yet understaffed, suffocatingly powerful government bureaucracy to operate?

Charlie Crist has prompted rumors that he now leans toward running for the Senate in 2010:

Gov. Charlie Crist stoked the coals of speculation Friday night at the black caucus dinner when he shook a few hands and said something not-so-cryptic to Democratic leader and Congressional candidate Al Lawson of Tallahassee.

” ‘See you in Washington,’ he said. I can’t think of what that means other than that he’s going to run for Senate,” said Lawson.

Crist running for the Senate could make for a crowded political field in the Sunshine State, with Good Time Charlie squaring off against former FL House Speaker Marco Rubio (that is, if he doesn’t switch gears and run for governor) for the Senate nomination and state Attorney General Bob McCollum taking on FL Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson for the gubernatorial nomination.

Finally, some interesting speculation has emerged in South Carolina:

Sources close to South Carolina’s top GOP politicians tell FITS that a compromise is in the works that would permit over $700 million in federal bureaucratic bailout (a.k.a. “stimulus”) funding to go toward non-recurring expenses – and that Gov. Mark Sanford is preparing to reverse his previous position and jump on board with the deal.

Of course, the rumors of a compromise agreement were quickly squelched by a top Senate aide, who told FITS on condition of anonymity that “we have no intention of letting (Sanford) off the hook that easily.”

“The governor is bleeding right now,” the aide said. “… and he knows it.”

Still, one deal allegedly proposed by Senate staff would have allocated $350 million of the controversial funds toward debt repayment with the remaining $350 million going toward non-recurring capital expenses.

…The governor’s eventual decision could boil down to whether his South Carolina or DC advisors hold sway.

Sanford Chief-of-Staff Scott English is reportedly counseling the governor to accept a deal that would permit at least some of the money to go toward non-recurring expenses – such as school buses, roads and bridges – while the governor’s D.C. political consultant Jon Lerner is advocating debt repayment because it better positions Sanford for a prospective 2012 presidential bid.

I doubt that Sanford has enough votes to allocate all or even half of the money for his favored purpose.  Of course, if the “stimulus” package’s second-order consequences (inflation, or even stagflation) blow up in the Dems’ faces and lose popular support, Sanford can still argue that he fought tooth and nail against it.

Many, many thanks to R4’12 mainstay Tommy Boy who is making the switch from Page 2 to Page 1 to help me out while I step away from the site for a few weeks.-KWN
_________________________________________________________________________

Don’t worry ladies, I did not receive full-time FPP status. Just filling in for Kavon while he’s attending to more pressing business these next few weeks.

Is it time to add John Ensign’s mug to the hallowed wing of Race42012 contenders?

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., will make his first political appearance in Iowa this spring, a move that will stoke speculation about his political future, given the state’s reputation as a launching pad for national politicians. American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4), signed Ensign to speak June 1 as part of a new lecture series featuring conservative leaders. Ensign will speak in Sioux City, long a hotbed of conservative political activity. With Friday’s state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage likely to be a topic for discussion, Ensign will have a prime opportunity to burnish his conservative credentials in the state that delivers the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus in 2012.

Ensign is one of the four most-conservative senators, tied with Minority Whip Kyl and Sens. John Barrasso and Michael Enzi of Wyoming in National Journal’s 2008 rankings. While the senator is not regularly mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, he has plenty of red meat to throw to social conservatives who are looking to take back the GOP, including his recent forays into gun rights and school choice in Washington, D.C., and his 2006 bill that made it illegal to help minors cross state lines to seek abortions while avoiding parental-notification laws. Ensign served as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and now serves as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. Ensign has not worked out specifics of his speech, but spokesman Tory Mazzola said the remarks would no doubt touch on the senator’s “strong commitment to limited government, personal responsibility and fiscal discipline.”

Tim Pawlenty received a slight bump in his approval ratings in the SurveyUSA Minnesota poll for March.

A new SurveyUSA poll conducted last month found that 51 percent of Minnesotans said they approve of the job Pawlenty’s doing. That’s up from February, when 48 percent of the state’s residents give him a thumbs-up on his performance; it’s down from January, when his approval rating stood at 54 percent. In the new poll, conducted March 20-22, 46 percent of the state’s residents said they didn’t approve of the job Pawlenty is doing.

Pawlenty has been hovering near what political analysts consider a danger zone, when a politician enjoys the support of fewer than half of poll respondents.

Exit question: Pawlenty still hasn’t said for certain whether he’ll run for a third-term. Of all the 2012 contenders, Pawlenty has the most difficult decision to make when it comes to re-election. If he runs for re-election and wins, the bragging rights of having won multiple times in a state that no presidential nominee from our party has won since 1972 could prove to be a difference-maker in Pawlenty’s favor among voters who decide to back a candidate based on his or her electability. However, if he runs for re-election and loses, one would think that Pawlenty’s chances of winning the 2012 nomination dry up significantly. But what about the scenario where he chooses to forgo a run for re-election and decides to dive straight into the 2012 contest? Does he risk looking smaller in stature to any 2012 competitors who were able to run for re-election in 2010 and win?

A candidate endorsed by Bobby Jindal for a State Senate contest was recently defeated soundly by another Republican. The Senate seat was Jindal’s home district. The “pundits” are painting the race as a defeat for Jindal.

Domingue’s endorsement was Jindal’s first in a legislative race since he became governor. Jindal had promised last year to stay out of legislative and statewide elections. Jindal singled Domingue out over two other Republican candidates.

Samuels said it may be wise for the governor to stay out of future races. “I’m not sure who’s advising him on that. I don’t think it was a very smart thing to do,” Samuels said.

Samuels said Claitor proved to be a good candidate. And, in parts of the district, Samuels said, Jindal “is not the most popular person right now because of proposed cuts to LSU.”

The results are clearly a “loss” for Jindal, Goidel said. “He’s irritated some people in the community and legislators are thinking he could not win in a Republican race,’” Goidel said. “You had a Republican-leaning district, a Republican race and not carrying that after you endorse. I don’t think there’s much ambiguity,” he said.

It’s at 1:30. Embedding is disabled, but if you double-click on it, it will bring you the video.

Looks like that Saturday Night Live rap segment.

The lyrics in question:

Sorry Portia, but what’s Ellen DeGeneres
Have that I don’t, are you telling me tenderness?
Well I can be as gentle and as smooth as a gentleman
Give me my Ventolin inhaler and 2 Zenedrin
And I’ll invite Sarah Palin out to dinner then nail her
‘Baby say hello to my little friend’ Brit forget K-Fed let’s cut off the middle man
Forget him or you’re gonna end up in hospital again
And this time it won’t be for the Ritalin binge

Dumb.

The topic of same-sex marriage tends to be an explosive one. In this post I’ll ask about a narrow issue that I hope is relatively noncontroversial. Please keep the comments limited to the topic of civil unions versus same-sex marriage.

If you had to choose between the government recognizing same-sex marriage or just recognizing civil unions which would you choose?

I expect most social conservatives favor civil unions over same-sex marriage if they lose the debate over the meaning of marriage. I expect most social liberals will favor the government recognizing same-sex marriages as opposed to leaving the meaning of marriage unaltered.

I actually would rather see the government recognize same-sex marriage as opposed to civil unions even though I’m a social conservative. Of course I’d rather we not redefine what marriage is in the first place. If we are going to redefine marriage I’d rather we do something less radical than introducing second class marriages that even heterosexuals could use.

So imagine for a moment you have to choose between civil unions or recognizing same-sex marriages. Which would you choose?

or Innocents Abroad, with compliments to the late Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain

Given the Saturday-Monday NCAA basketball Final Four and opening night and day of Major League Baseball, I confess I have not been glued to CNN’s (Celebration Next to None of) Barack and Michelle Obama’s European vacation from reality. I really don’t know if Camelot’s King Arthur for a third common era millennium and his Queen have returned to the weaker America they desire. I suspect not though, since I haven’t read of any more threats that the Administration would lift its finger from the pitchforks’ bound for CEO lynchings dike nor have the arugula farmers been nationalized, but I digress.

Besides, one doesn’t have to be glued to broadcast or cable television to understand that the Drive-by Media and Old Europe have held a Second Fat Tuesday for the last four days with no Lent in Sight. What many observers may not understand however, is that the media and their liberal Democratic Party allies are celebrating for different reasons than the leaders of our foreign allies. Celebrations are also being held by our enemies complete with huge North Korean fireworks displays over the Sea of Japan and huge grins on the faces of the Dons of Obama’s rival mob in Moscow.

Liberals like Katie Couric, Nancy Pelosi and the Obamas want so much to be liked and want so much to believe that verbal conflict resolution (with unilateral grabbing of the ankles thrown in for good measure) can tame the savage (er, ah, differently cultured) beast, i.e. people that kill innocents (man-made disasters) as a matter of policy.

Many of our European allies, like our enemies, publicly celebrate Obama’s oratory and actions for the same reason the Tar Heels celebrate their vanquishing of the Spartans last night.

The President of the United States surrendered large swaths of sovereignty to our allies in word and deed while all but destroying any notion of peace through strength deterrence in the face of our enemies.

The surrender frog (PC police prohibits use of the more familiar surrender monkey term despite the declaration of a post-racial America) itinerary, appropriately began with the French:

1) Obama, shocked to learn that Sarkozy had replaced Chirac, withdrew his demand that European nations join his currency-destroying grandchild tax stimulus spending orgy when the French President he didn’t write a note to, furrowed his brow and said no.

2) The president of the nation that threw off a King and invented self government by We the creator-ordained rights People, bowed to an Arab potentate.

3) The President of the nation that liberated Europe twice; Marshall Planned Europe’s post war reconstruction and spends billions to keep sea lanes open for deliveries of American culture to a continent that loathes its own, described our nation’s attitude toward Europe before the Age of Obama as derisively rude in the face of “European leadership”. Guess we shouldn’t have littered France with all those headstones?

4) Oh, and as to the grabbing of the ankles, the would be-Messiah turned other cheeks while dreaming of a world without nuclear weapons (Plans for a world without thorns near rose buds nor sharp rocks on Maui beaches are scheduled to be rolled out in 2010) as he readily agreed with a CheshireCat-grinning invader of Georgia to turn our weapons into arugula plow shares. Formerly ill Kim joined the celebration less than 24 hours later with a long range missile launch. For his measure, President Obama found another cheek to turn within 18 hours and proposed slashing the budget for expansion of the increasingly operational Strategic Missile Defense and overall defense budget lest Kim’s fireworks be denied their full culmination and lest Tbilisi, Warsaw or Prague have any unrealistic notions of that worn out Liberty concept continuing.

5) Finally, we note that the President’s insecurity complex about his middle name was cured after a Midnight Run to Turkey. No word if hashish was the anecdote. B. Hussein Obama declared that America is not at war with Islam. Apparently being “at war” with Islam means liberating Muslims from genocidal Christians in Bosnia, murderous despots in Iraq and terrorists in Afghanistan.

For good measure, President Obama thanked Islam for its huge role in “shaping” America. Who knew our Hussein so loathed pentagons?

All in all, a pretty successful trip for a President and a Democratic Party whose version of America exceptionalism means being exceptionally ashamed for our past sins so as to be loved by their intellectual kin abroad and in dis-inventing the Model-T and Edison’s bulb at home.

Sadly, like Twain’s lead bullet-laden Calaveras County frog, Obama’s jump won’t be high enough either, so weighed down as he is with a dangerously naive leftist world view whose weakness has always invited aggression from enemies of Liberty filling power vacuums that nature abhors.

What is so sad is that whether it be Old Europe, Russia, or Iran, etc, whenever non-Americans cry “jump”, our Citizen of the World, erstwhile Teleprompter of the United States frog replies, “How high”?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report

More good news for Chris Christie who continues to lead Gov. Corzine by a significant margin in this potential match-up.:

Fairleigh Dickinson2009 New Jersey Governor Poll

• Christie Christie 42%
• Jon Corzine 33%

• Steve Lonegan 37%
• Jon Corzine 36%

Favorables

• Christie Christie 31%-12% (+19)
• Jon Corzine 33%-56% (-23)

Republican Primary

• Chris Christie 43%
• Steve Lonegan 21%

I am one of the many who verbally piled on Senator Stevens when he was convicted of lying on his Senate financial forms, and like some others, I now admit to being wrong and not giving him the benefits of the doubt.  Supporting earmarks does not prove intent on other criminal activities.  In our celebrity-driven culture, the media and public are quick to convict those in the public eye, even before a hearing.  In this case, we took the word of the Federal government without investigating the facts or listening to the defendant.  Governor Palin was criticized in some liberal publications for not taking a stronger stand again the re-election bid of Senator Stevens, but maybe she knew the truth all along?    

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on the Stevens case:

A federal judge criticized the government’s handling of the Ted Stevens corruptiontrial Tuesday as he considered whether to dismiss the conviction that ended the Alaska Republican’s 40-year career in the U.S. Senate.  “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case,” 

The judge said he has seen a troubling trend of prosecutors withholding evidence in cases against people ranging from Guantanamo Bay detainees to public officials such as Stevens. He called on judges nationwide to issue formal orders in all criminal cases requiring that prosecutors turn over evidence to defendants.

It was a stinging rebuke of the Justice Department and Sullivan called on Holder to order training for all prosecutors.

 Stevens is too old to run for re-election in 6 years, but in the red state of Alaska, this will help delegitimize the re-election campaign of Senator Begich.  

These are probably not results that the folks over at Kos were hoping for:

Research 2000/Daily Kos 2010 South Dakota Senate Poll

• John Thune 53%
• Tom Daschle 40%

• John Thune 51%
• Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin 39%

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Sen. John Thune (R): 57%-32% (+25)
  
• Tom Daschle (D): 50%-43% (+7)
• Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D): 53%-31% (+22)
• Pres. Barack Obama: 47%-45% (+2)

3/30 – 4/1/09; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error

This story came out a couple days ago, but it still merits mention:

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama’s job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president — 88% job approval among Democrats — and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush’s job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term.

So much for Obama’s “post-partisanship”…

In keeping up with noteworthy events in the news, a poll administered by faculty at the University of Iowa has revealed the following:

Only around 36 percent of Iowans oppose both gay marriage and civil unions, according to a UI Hawkeye Poll released on April 3. More than a quarter of the 978 respondents support gay marriage, and around 28 percent are cozy with the idea of civil unions.

The same study showed that among Iowans under 30, nearly 60 percent support gay marriage.

As you can see, the poll reports a relatively even split among the three prominent positions.  Perhaps the greater support gay marriage has among Iowans under 30 suggests that the GOP should seriously consider a compromise on the issue – one that involves accepting civil unions, as people on this and other sites have suggested?

Tim Pawlenty has entered into an agreement with Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle to pool certain basic services offered by their respective states:

The governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin still like to spar over their interstate sports rivalries, but the recession is pushing them to team up in delivering some basic state services to save taxpayers on both sides of their border up to $10 million to start.

…Wisconsin’s prison farms could sell milk to Minnesota. Wisconsin could piggyback on a Minnesota contract to save 30 percent to 55 percent on shipping costs for small packages. Oversized trucks could get one permit to travel through both states, and the states could combine efforts to fight invasive gypsy moths and emerald ash borers, which know no state borders.

While $10 million comes nowhere close to closing Minnesota’s approximately $5 billion budget deficit, this proposal showcases some of the famed Pawlenty Pragmatism.  With an impressive record as governor of a rather blue state and a proven ability to work with Democrats (again evidenced by the agreement with Doyle), Pawlenty does offer an interesting option for 2012, especially if the Dems retain their power in Congress.

John Maginnis of Bayou Buzz offers his take on Bobby Jindal’s budget negotiations:

Legislators, stung by the governor’s vetoes of their pay raise and local spending projects last year, are determined to show more independence from him in the coming session, starting with the budget. They have picked a funny time to take charge. Last year, the governor got to decide how to spend a $1 billion surplus and over $1 billion in new revenues, with minimal input and backtalk from lawmakers.

This year, with $1.3 billion less to spend and layoffs and service cutbacks looming, he is more than happy to let them rearrange the reductions, as long as they don’t raise taxes.

The favored solution of many legislators, however, is to grow the pot by taking from two other large pots, $775 million in the so-called Rainy Day fund and another $415 million in the mega fund set aside for large economic development projects. The governor does not favor using the former this year and is trying to commit the latter before legislators get their hands on it.

The constitution allows the Legislature to use up to one-third of the Rainy Day fund in a year, about $258 million, with no more withdrawals for two more years.

It’s raining now, say legislators. But it will be pouring in two years, responds the governor, when the federal stimulus money–$666 million a year for two years in the state general fund–runs out. Jindal and Commissioner of Administration Angele Davis want to start a steep but gradual descent now rather than fall off the cliff in 2011, when, of course, the governor and legislators will be up for re-election.

Credit Jindal for continuing to place the principles of fiscal conservatism in action, something far too few members of the GOP did during the Bush years, causing significant damage to the Republican brand, in my view.

Lastly, an academic paper written by Harvard’s Joshua Coval and Erik Stafford and Princeton’s Jakub Jurek contends that the markets have correctly appraised the value of toxic assets:

It [the paper] draws three important conclusions.

• Many banks are now insolvent. “…many major US banks are now legitimately insolvent. This insolvency can no longer be viewed as an artifact of bank assets being marked to artificially depressed prices coming out of an illiquid market. It means that bank assets are being fairly priced at valuations that sum to less than bank liabilities.”

• Supporting markets in toxic assets has no purpose other than transfering money from taxpayers to banks. “…any taxpayer dollars allocated to supporting these markets will simply transfer wealth to the current owners of these securities.”

• We’re making it worse. “…policies that attempt to prevent a widespread mark-down in the value of credit-sensitive assets are likely to only delay – and perhaps even worsen – the day of reckoning.”

In short, the government cannot save the banks by improving liquidity or changing mark to market rules because the problem isn’t illiquidity or accounting. The problem is that highly leveraged financial firms own assets that are worth far less than they thought they would be, and the firms are insolvent as a result. This is why the latest bailout plans secretly give huge subsidies to banks–because the only way to keep the insolvent zombies afloat is to transfer billions of dollars to banks, bank stockholders, and bank creditors. The alternative–allowing the insolvent banks to fail, seizing the assets, wiping our shareholders, giving bond holders a serious haircut–is still not on the official agenda.

The last bullet point speaks volumes.  If that day of reckoning comes in the next couple years, Mark Sanford may end up the big winner in 2012, as he has arguably taken the hardest line (among people actually holding an office) against the Obama administration’s spending.  One can imagine him remarking something like, “Trillions of dollars spent, and NOTHING to show for it!” on the campaign trail if he decides to run.

While you weren’t watching the Obama administration’s proposal for the defense budget started to trickle out.

While the details aren’t fully fleshed out, it is clear many Congressmen’s preferred programs are being cut or simply ended. That is a mixed bag with many programs wasting taxpayer dollars with dubious benefits for our warfighters.

I fully support ending waste and controlling the wasteful defense procurement process but this budget goes further.

What has leaked out about this budget is troubling. The Army’s plan for modernization (known as Future Combat Systems) is being gutted with some of the most important systems and weapons at risk of cancellation. Other programs to help keep our soldiers safe are also being cut.

Democrat President Barack Obama has not proposed how he will modernize our military as he begins to cancel and cut the programs that would keep our military’s competitive edge. Democrats have a record of cutting our military and demanding our military personnel do more with less.

What I’m worried about is that Congressmen will save a few pet projects (in the uproar over the budget) while the weapons and systems our warfighters need for the future are ended.

While Democrat Barack Obama is looking to shift resources away from our soldiers, China is building up its military might while examining unconventional but devastating ways to attack us.

At this point I doubt the blogosphere would generate an uproar over something as boring as Barack Obama putting our military as a low priority. That’s kind of expected behavior from liberal Democrats. If there are still conservative Democrats who take our nation’s defense seriously now is the time for them to stand up for the troops. They are the only ones who can stop the liberal Democrat in the Oval Office.

I pray that these decisions to cut funding for our military do not result in deaths of American civilians or troops.

Matt Lewis has an interesting post exploring a potential Huntsman candidacy over at AOL’s The Political Machine. He doesn’t see much room in the field for the man from Utah, and doubts his ability to marshal the needed support among non-moderates. Here are the money paragraphs.

Huntsman could definitely win a lot of centrists to his cause, but I don’t see a real opening for him. McCain may have been a moderate, but he had his national security credentials, a compelling biography, and a reputation as a “maverick” to lean on.

Huntsman, on the other hand, is not a “wild-card” or a “maverick” — he’s just a consistent voice of “why-can’t-we-all-get-along” moderation. I personally would be unable to support him, and if the good people of Utah love him so much, I would prefer that they keep him. If the moderates want to put forward a viable contender for the GOP nomination in 2012, they will have to find a novel candidate who can inspire conservatives too (Judd Gregg?) — not a traditional centrist politician like Huntsman.

I also like this little vignette:

Plus, he has a habit of flashing his puppy-dog-eyes during speeches (multiple times during the Palin speech). And while I like presidential candidates to inspire an emotional response, the one response you don’t want to inspire is “Mommy, can we keep him?”

I would tend to agree with Matt, but I’m a raging conservative and an unabashed Sarah-bot. So, what say you about Governor Huntsman and his puppy-dog eyes?

She’s out.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., told a Monday meeting of the Little Rock Political Animals Club that she will oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.

Lincoln’s office said the senator will release a statement on the legislation this afternoon. 

“I cannot support that bill,” Lincoln said, according to one attendee. “Cannot support that bill in its current form. Cannot support and will not support moving it forward in its current form.”

Look for the left to begin targeting her the way they plan to target Senator Evan Bayh.  This division between pragmatic democrats and radical-fringe liberals is something we need to use to our advantage.  In races such as these it is very important for our party to recruit solid candidates who can exploit the left’s attempts to purge New Democrats from their ranks.  Mitch Daniels or Mike Pence in Indiana, and maybe we can talk Janet Huckabee into giving elected office another go (she previously ran for Sec. of State).

First, the Turks refused our military access to US bases on Turkish soil, for the Iraq liberation war.  Now, the Islamic government in Ankara is preventing [Prevented] the appointment of the new NATO Secretary, over a cartoon that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006. Is it time for the United States and Europe to reconsider Turkey’s NATO membership and their application for full EU membership?  Should we encourage the Turkish military to stage a coup and overthrow the democratically elected Islamic government?  Are the Turks aware that there is still a bounty on the head of this cartoonist (and others), placed upon it by al-Qaeda?  Why is the Turkish government legitimizing the threats from al-Qaeda?

The row over publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper resurfaced this week as Turkey held up the appointment of Danish prime minister as the new Nato secretary general. But as the BBC’s Malcolm Brabant reports from Denmark, the impact of that 2006 controversy has never gone away for those closely involved.

300,000 March Against Turkey’s Leader

With a crowd estimated at more than 300,000, the protest was one of the nation’s largest in decades. Red Turkish flags hung from balconies and windows and fluttered in the hands of protesters, who chanted, “We don’t want an imam as president!” and “Turkey is secular and will remain secular!”

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has brandished his strong religious convictions, speaking out against restrictions on wearing Islamic-style head scarves in government offices and schools, and taking steps to bolster religious institutions in this country founded on the principle of secular rule.

He also tried to criminalize adultery before being forced to back down under intense pressure from the European Union, which Turkey is trying to join.

—-

Update: Aron provided a link to all 12 of the Danish of the cartoons.