TightyRighty.net

In a piece in the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hays reports that the U.S. is now Mirandizing certain high-value detainees in Afghanistan.  ARE WE INSANE?  This is so wrong on so many levels.

First of all, Miranda rights are meant to protect U.S. citizens.  A terrorist picked up on a battlefield is (usually) not a U.S. citizen.

Secondly, Miranda rights are provided so that potential defendants do not say things which may be used against them in a court of law.    Enemy combatants should not be tried in a court of law.

Thirdly, the reason that detainees are interrogated is not to obtain information that can be used to prosecute them, it is to gain intelligence about the enemy and its tactics on the battlefield.  If you tell the detainee they have the right to remain silent, why would they provide us with any information, which could save American lives?

This just demonstrates the Obama administrations’ belief that there is no war on terror, just a police action against some wacky jihadis.  This reckless and irresponsible approach to a very real danger is exactly why Dick Cheney is correct when he stated the Obama administration has made us less safe.

Finally, please note the the Red Cross is encouraging detainees to exercise their Miranda rights and not provide information.  You can be assured they will never see another dollar of contribution from me.

And now the other shoe is dropping.  An article in today’s Washington Post indicates “U.S. Targets Excessive Pay for Top Executives“.  Among the troubling statements in this article are the following:

The Obama administration named a “compensation czar” yesterday to set salaries and bonuses at some of the biggest firms at the heart of the economic crisis, as part of a broader government campaign to reshape pay practices across corporate America…

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said yesterday that the administration is not interested in “capping pay” or “setting forth precise prescriptions for how companies should set compensation.” Instead, he said, the government wants to rein in pay practices that motivated executives to take excessive risks in pursuit of profit…

“This financial crisis had many significant causes, but executive compensation practices were a contributing factor,” Geithner said yesterday…

And more initiatives to address these practices are coming. The Federal Reserve is examining how regulators can oversee pay at all banks. Geithner and senior White House officials, meanwhile, plan to make executive pay a focus of their efforts to overhaul financial regulation, which officials say will be detailed next week…

Feinberg, who previously managed the government’s efforts to compensate the families of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, will control compensation at seven firms that have received large federal bailouts…

He will also have the authority to set overall compensation, but not precise salary levels, for firms that have received smaller bailouts. The goal, officials said, is to curb the practice of tying pay to performance in a way that induces traders and executives to take big risks. Feinberg can also decide whether executives who have received what he considers excessive compensation should return some of that money…

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who leads the House Financial Services Committee, said the measures did not go far enough and plans to introduce legislation directing the SEC to outline guidelines for how compensation committees should determine pay…

Administration officials said they also hoped their efforts would pressure firms to rein in lavish pay by giving shareholders the right to vote on an executive’s overall compensation package.

There are so many things in this article to be concerned about.

First of all, do we need another “czar”?  We have an auto czar, a cyber czar, a Great Lakes cleanup czar (I missed this one – did you?), WMD czar, etc.  Why do we need all these czars?  Is it because you can infuse these folks with an incredible amount of power, but since these are not cabinet posts, they don’t require congressional approval?  Sounds very transparent to me.

Secondly, Treassury Secretary (does anyone else have a hard time calling a tax cheat the Treasury Secretary?) Geithner’s statement that the administration is not interested in “capping pay” or “setting forth precise prescriptions for how companies should set compensation” challenges credulity.  This is exactly what they want, and if not done by the administration, they certainly want to open the door so that Congress, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, etc. can do precisely that – manage executive compensation.  His claim the government wants to rein in pay practices that motivated executives to take excessive risks in pursuit of profit is also a canard.  If you do not want companies taking excessive risks, change the rules regarding the types of risks these companies can and cannot take.

Thirdly, how scary is it that the czar can “can also decide whether executives who have received what he considers excessive compensation should return some of that money.”  If the government can step in after the fact, and impose its will on decisions made by companies and their boards, then the term socialism is not too strong to describe the type of government to which we have evolved.

Finally, giving shareholders the right to vote onexecutive compensation is pitiful.  That is why the shareholders elect a board of directors.  Perhaps we should give citizens the right to vote on stimulus packages and health care reform.

The one thing in this article I don’t have a problem with is the management of executive compensation at the 7 firms who have taken significant amounts of taxpayer support, within the framework of existing agreements.  See my prior post located here regarding honoring contracts.   Going forward, if the contracts are too rich for the work being performed, fire the exec so they can go somewhere they will be paid a market rate.

I think all of these are summed up in the comment that “These efforts reflect the administration’s conclusion that companies cannot police themselves on matters of pay.”  But of course the government, in its infinite wisdom, can.  Again, we see the arrogance of our President and his administration thinking that they know better, even though many of them, the President included, have never actually run anything of any size and don’t understand the complexities of running a business in a free market.

No, I did not get up early to hear the President’s speech. I didn’t watch it on YouTube either. I read the full text so that I could see what he said and not how he said it. The guy is an unbelievable good orator, but my experience is that he is full of scope and grandeur and very short on solutions. That was my sense of this speech also – a lot of ground covered, he said some good things, he said some scary things (particularly if you are an Israeli) but very little in the way of action plans. Perhaps that is too much to expect in the speech which is supposed to be the start of new relations. Maybe, maybe not.

First, an overall comment. Throughout the speech, he referred to violent extremists. Not terrorists, not Islamic extremists, not man-caused disaster causers, but rather, violent extremists. I think that most Americans would infer he means Islamic extremists, but he was vague on this matter, probably in deference to his hosts. However, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and he did not do that.

As I said, he covered a lot of ground, so I cut out a number of sections to comment on, as follows:

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.

No disagreement here.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Which Islam is this? I would say that Islam is not very intolerant of Jews, so I have to disagree on this point.

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world.

Very well stated. Kudos for this point.

Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Again, very well stated.

Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

My issue with this statement is what is not said. If Islam is not part of the problem, is it part of the solution? On this question, the answer is resoundingly no. How many Muslim clerics speak out against the terrorists? What is the Islamic faith doing to root out “bad” mosques where the Jews and the West are painted as the great satans and hatred is fomented? On this count, the Islamic faith comes up lacking.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

Whoa doggies! By my recollection, the use of diplomacy by the U.N. was an abject failure. Remember the 17 U.N. resolutions which Hussein violated over 12 years? Don’t forget U.N. resolution 1441, under which the UN Security Council voted unanimously to present Saddam with the ultimatum to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons programs or “serious consequences would follow.” Since the French, Russians and Chinese would not stand behind their votes, the Americans and British took it upon themselves to enforce the resolution and implement regime change.

Additionally, remember when “W” said “you are either with us or with the terrorists” in the war on terror? I don’t recall that Saddam Hussein was with us. I do recall he was paying bounties to Palestinian families who lost their family members doing their job as terrorist. But perhaps President Obama does not recognize a war on terror, just a police action to deal with extremists who kill innocents in the name of their religion (of peace).

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

This statement is very problematic. First of all, it implies that we acted rashly in implementing enhanced interrogation techniques. If you read the memos which the Obama administration released regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques, it is apparent that the decision to use these techniques was very well considered, and not done spur of the moment. Secondly, enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. See my earlier blogpost. Finally, Gitmo is a symbol of American injustice primarily because the Democrats have made it just that. Dennis Miller was down there a couple of weeks ago and he was raving about the place. Korans are presented to each arriving detainee by a gloved U.S. Military Man, there are arrows to Mecca all over the place, the average detainee has gained 20 pounds since arriving, etc. Sounds like hell. I would rather be there than SuperMax.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Good point, although it appears he is stating the Jews were given Israel because they were mistreated throughout history, particularly during the Holocaust, rather than because Israel is their homeland because God gave it to them.

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest.

There we have it – the two state solution. I don’t believe the Israelis believe the two state solution is in their best interests. The Palestinians already have territories. Are they developing these territories for the benefit of their citizens? Absolutely not. They are using their funds to make war with Israel in order to eradicate Israel. When the Palestinians view Gaza as a launch pad for Qassam rockets (some 7000+ since 2001), why would it be any different if the Palestinians had a state compared to territories? It would not. The Palestinians want a one state solution, and it is not Israel.

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

That is one extremely huge “if”. I believe that it is extremely naïve to believe that we can trust Iran with nukes. This just points to the extreme arrogance of our President in that he believes that he can make a madman like Ahmadinejad, the man who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and who hosted a Holocaust denial conference, to toe the nuclear line. President Obama is so (over) confident in this smooth talking and negotiating ability that he believes he can reason with this nutcase. Has Ahmadinejad given us any reason to believe that Iran would “comply with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”? I think not.

So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

So apparently no nation can not impose a system of government on another nation, but the U.S. can impose a two state solution on Israel and the Palestinians.

For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

According to Wikipedia, zakat is “the giving of a small percentage of one’s income to charity. It is often compared to the system of tithing and alms, but it serves principally as the welfare contribution to poor and deprived people in Muslim countries, although others may have a rightful share. It is the duty of an Islamic state not just to collect zakat but to distribute it fairly as well.”

There are no rules prohibiting charitable contributions to legitimate charities, such as churches and mosques. There are rules prohibiting contributions to terrorist sponsoring organizations, such as the Holyland Foundation. I am surprised that President Obama is committed to making it easier for American Muslims to make charitable contributions when he is proposing rules to make it less enticing for everyone else. Please see my earlier post located here.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

This is such a hedged statement, it is of little or no value. I count at least four statements which soften the point he is trying to make. Additionally, it appears to be focused purely on educational opportunties for women and neglects many of the other ways women are mistreated in the Muslim world.  Again, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and call out the Muslims on this point.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.

Mr. President, in case you have not noticed, we are not really in a position to fund this kind initiative due to your enormous budget deficits. Perhaps we could ask Muslim countries who are deriving billions and billions and billions of dollars from our gas money to fund this initiative. Again, let them be part of the solution, rather than the U.S. doing all the heavy lifting.

So there you have it. While not as apologetic as his prior speeches, he also took little credit for all the good the U.S. has done for Muslims and in the Middle East. He also went very light on holding Muslims accountable for many of the problems with which they are dealing. Additionally, he committed to spend a lot of money we don’t have to address these issues, rather than holding the Muslims accountable to drive a lot of these solutions.

I am sure this went over well on the “Arab Street”. I would guess they heard more apologizing for the U.S. and the West and very little of the very little chiding of the Muslims and Middle East which was contained herein. I am also certain they heard loud and clear that the U.S. commitment to Israel is much weaker than it has been in the past. Finally, I am sure they view this president in much the same way – much weaker than in the past. Based on the recent actions and statements of North Korea, Iran, etc., it appears the rest of the world feels the same way.

So it seems that Colin Powell thinks the Republicans need to dump Rush Limbaugh and move to the center.  He made a speech last month in which he stated:

The GOP is “getting smaller and smaller” and “that’s not good for the nation.”

“I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without”.

Regarding Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Powell said she is “a very accomplished person” but became “a very polarizing figure”.

“The Republican Party is in deep trouble,” he said. “The party must realize that the country has changed. Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”

This is from the same man who supported Barack Obama, by far the most liberal (dare I say “socialist”?) presidential candidate ever.  He doubled down on Face the Nation when he said:

“If we don’t reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base.  You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base.”

“What we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are and not just listen to dictates that come down from the right wing of the party.”

I think that General Powell has it all wrong.  Americans did not support John McCain because they don’t want Democrat-lite.  Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, Barack Obama would have won the election by twice or triple his winning margin.  The conservative base is floundering because we feel unrepresented by the Republican party.  I consider myself a Conservative and no longer consider myself a Republican.  Every single piece of mail the RNC sends me goes straight into the waste basket. And I know I am not alone.

The Republican party needs strong conservative leaders who can stand up to the MSM and clearly define the virtues of conservatism and stand for what is right – not mealy-mouthed politicians who are afraid to take a stand because they might offend some special interest group.   Thank God that Rush and Dick Cheney have taken on this mantle.  Although I agree with Newt Gingrich that the Republicans need a big tent, that tent must be built on the bedrock foundation of conservative values.

Perhaps Ronald Reagan put it best when he stated in 1975:

“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but BOLD COLORS which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people…” –

The American people must be given a real choice between Republican Conservatism and Democratic Statism.  So on this matter, I guess I am pro-choice.

My dad sent this to me a few years ago.  I keep the email in my inbox and read it occasionally to help me remain grounded about the role mothers play in our lives and the role my mother has played and continues to play in my life.

The young mother set her foot on the path of life. “Is this the long way?” she asked.  And the guide said “Yes, and the way is hard.  And you will be old before you reach the end of it.  But the end will be better than the beginning.”

But the young mother was happy, and she would not believe that anything could be better than these years.

So she played with her children, she fed them and bathed them, and taught them how to tie their shoes and ride a bike and reminded them to feed the dog, and do their homework and brush their teeth. The sun shone on them, and the young Mother cried, “Nothing will ever be lovelier than this.”

Then the nights came, and the storms, and the path was sometimes dark, and the children shook with fear and cold, and the mother drew them close and covered them with her arms, and the children said, “Mother, we are not afraid, for you are near, and no harm can come.”

And the morning came, and there was a hill ahead, and the children climbed and grew weary, and the mother was weary.  But at all times she said to the children, “A little patience and we are there.”

So the children climbed, and as they climbed they learned to weather the storms.  And with this, she gave them strength to face the world.

Year after year, she showed them compassion, understanding, hope, but most of all … unconditional love.

And when they reached the top they said, “Mother, we would not have done it without you.”

The days went on, and the weeks and the months and the years, and the mother grew old and she became little and bent.  But her children were tall and strong, and walked with courage.  And the mother, when she lay down at night, looked up at the stars and said, “This is a better day than the last, for my children have learned so much and are now passing these traits on to their children.”

And when the way became rough for her, they lifted her, and gave her their strength, just as she had given them hers.

One day they came to a hill, and beyond the hill, they could see a shining road and golden gates flung wide.

And mother said: “I have reached the end of my journey. And now I know the end is better than the beginning, for my children can walk with dignity and pride, with their heads held high, and so can their children after them.”

And the children said, ” You will always walk with us, Mother, even when you have gone through the gates.”  And they stood and watched her as she went on alone, and the gates closed after her.  And they said: “We cannot see her, but she is with us still.  A Mother like ours is more than a memory.  She is a living presence.”

Your Mother is always with you.  She’s the whisper of the leaves as you walk down the street, she’s the smell of certain foods you remember, flowers you pick and perfume that she wore, she’s the cool hand on your brow when you’re not feeling well, she’s your breath in the air on a cold winter’s day.  She is the sound of the rain that lulls you to sleep, the colors of a rainbow, she is Christmas morning.

Your Mother lives inside your laughter.  And she’s crystallized in every tear drop.

A mother shows every emotion … happiness, sadness, fear, jealousy, love, hate, anger, helplessness, excitement, joy, sorrow … and all the while, hoping and praying you will only know the good feelings in life.  She’s the place you came from, your first home, and she’s the map you follow with every step you take.   She’s your first love, your first friend, even your first enemy, but nothing on earth can separate you.

~ Written for Good Housekeeping Magazine in 1933 by Temple Bailey ~

Every time I read this I tear up a bit and I thank God for both my mother – Barbara Lavey and my wife Jenny – the mother of my children.

Thank you mom and thank you Jenny.  I love both of you very much.

Referring to Joe Biden’s statement (gaffe) that he wouldn’t go into confined spaces like an airplane due to swine flu concerns, Dennis Miller asked Liz Claman of Fox Business:

“Can you tear someone a new one who already is one?”

Classic Dennis Miller!!

ps      Is it necessary to refer to statements by VP Biden as gaffes, or is that redundant?

David Stokes at Townhall.com has pointed out an interesting paradox in President Obama’s thinking which he calls “selective righteousness“.  This paradox was on display at the Presidential press conference last week.

There are a couple of issues before the American people about which there is significant debate – enhanced interrogation (referred to by the press and liberals as “torture”) and abortion.  There is little debate that the US as a country, should not sanction or permit torture, nor that we should willingly take innocent human life.  In both of these issues, the difficulty is in the nuance – when is enhanced interrogation torture and when does human life begin?

On the question of enhanced interrogation, President Obama displays incredible certitude that enhanced interrogation techniques (waterboarding in particular)  are torture.  He stated:

“What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture.  I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.”

He acknowledges that there is a difference of opinion on this matter.  He acknowledges that that there may have been information obtained by using these techniques.  Members of the CIA have confirmed that information which has saved lives has been obtained through the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.  However, he pooh-poohs the assertion from a number of CIA officials that the use of these techniques was necessary to obtain the life-saving information by stating that “we could have gotten this information in other ways”, for which he provides no support.

Regarding abortion, when asked by Pastor Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life) at the Saddleback Forum, when a baby is entitled to human rights, Senator Obama stated:

“… answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

… One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.”

He acknowledges there are differences of opinion on this issue, and he notes the difficulty of the issue.  Most importantly, he states that he does not know when human life begins.

So, in the matter of enhanced interrogation, you are dealing with very, very bad guys.  In this process they are made very uncomfortable but they are not hurt and there are no permanent effects.  It is proven there is a payoff from using these techniques in the form of information which can and has saved lives.  There is significant contention as to whether enhanced interrogation is torture.

In the matter of abortion, you are dealing with innocent life.  In this process the innocent life is terminated.  In the case of later term abortions, it has been proven that the baby feels pain before death.  There is significant contention as to whether abortion ends a human life.

So the question is this:

When faced with these two contentious issues, one of which involves inconveniencing bad, bad people but has been shown to have the potential to save lives, and the other involves innocent babies and is proven to be painful and ends lives, why is the President so certain that enhanced interrogation is torture and is willing to ban it, yet on the abortion issue, he acknowledges he does not know when human life begins, but he is willing and has taken several actions necessary to ensure that abortion is easily accessible and affordable both in the US and around the world?

Seems to me like he has his clarity on these two issues backwards.

Thank you Red!

I know the MSM is in the tank for President Obama.  But can we at least get a little skepticism – just a little?  Time after time, the President will make outlandish statements (some might/have called these lies) and he is rarely, if ever challenged on these.

In his press conference last night, President Obama stated we didn’t need to use enhanced interrogation techniques, which he called torture,

“because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.”

And this statement was not challenged!  If you read the enhanced interrogation technique memos the Obama Administration released, you will see the interrogation of key terrorists was performed methodically with the pressure increased through the use of increasingly harsher techniques.  Mark Thiessen has written an excellent piece concerning the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah:

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qaida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ … In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.” The memo continues: “Before the CIA used enhanced techniques … KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will find out.’ ” Once the techniques were applied, “interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

It is clear that the enhanced techniques were the key to obtaining “specific, actionable intelligence”.  That said, how can the President claim that “we could have gotten this information in other ways”?  Does he have kinder, gentler interrogation techniques he can demonstrate are equally effective?  Why didn’t anyone at the press conference challenge this statement?

Secondly,  the President stated that there have already been “150,000 jobs created or saved”.  This is an incredible canard. It is impossible to prove how many jobs were “saved”.  As we have heard many times, you can not prove a negative.  Hey Mr. Businessman, how many folks did you not fire?  I fill out lots of government census reports which deal with employment and payroll, and none of them ask how many jobs were “saved”.  Why didn’t anyone at the press conference challenge this statement?

Finally, he claimed that all the folks who refinanced their mortgages because interest rates are low have effectively received a “tax cut”.  Again, another canard which went unchallenged.  Mortgage rates are low because home sales have fallen dramatically over the last few months, resulting in very low demand for new loans.  Accordingly, I ask again, why didn’t anyone at the press conference challenge this statement?

However, this ruse of the President’s may very instructive.  Keep in mind, that the while campaigning, Senator Obama promised that 95% of the population would not have their taxes raised.  If he can claim that mortgage refinance savings are effectively a “tax cut” will he make the same correlation when “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket” under his cap and trade plan?  Will he admit to violating his campaign pledge by “raising taxes” on everyone via higher energy prices directly attributable to his legislation?  My assumption is that he will not.

It is no wonder that people are leaving the MSM in droves and seeking other sources of news.

So today President Obama gave his first 100 days press conference.  Man – the guy can ramble!  I guess that by repeating every single precaution against spreading the flu virus that we have all heard ad nauseum for the past several days he significantly cuts down the number of questions he can be asked in a set amount of time.  Good strategy, unless you truly want to be transparent.

My assessment of his first 100 days:

Positives:

Negatives:

• Reversing Mexico City policy so pro-life folks like me can help fund abortions
• Reversing and mocking President Bush’s very well reasoned stem cell research policy in the support of  the “false choice between sound science and moral values.”
• The Great Obama Apology Tour to Europe
• The Great Obama Apology Tour to Latin America
• Releasing the enhanced interrogation technique (not “torture”) memos so every terrorist with an internet connection now understands the limits we which will push terrorists
• Announcing the close of Gitmo without having a plan for where to relocate the terrorist detainees
• Watching North Korea launch a missle while giving an anti-nuclear speech and then doing nothing about it
• Implementing a $787 Billion stimulus package, much of which is not stimulative, and much of which is not spent this year or next
• Proposing a $1.7 Trillion budget deficit for 2009 and $1.2 Trillion budget deficit in 2010.  Can you say higher taxes and inflation?
• Demonstrating he knows how to run a car company by firing the 30+ year GM veteran and bringing in new blood – the 25 year GM veteran
• Allowing his administration to besmirsch the sacrifice and service of every Iraqi and Afganistan war veteran by painting them as potential right wing terrorists while describing real terrorist acts as “man caused disasters”
• Proposing a cap and trade energy policy under which “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket” (His words, not mine)
• Proposing a $600+ Billion “down payment” on the precursor to single payer health care system such as exists in Canada.  Do you ever wonder why the folks in Canada come to the US for good medical treatment?

I could probably go on with the Negatives, but that is all that comes to mind now.  I will enhance this list as I recall other issues.

A lot of folks on the right would grade this performance as an “F”, but I see the top two items as more equal than the others, so I will grade him a “D”.  I am very concerned, however, that the combination of profiligate government spending, reduced energy availabilty and government controlled health care will signifcantly erode the quality of life for our kids and future generations.  We are very well at the apex of the American standard of living.  So perhaps, it should be a “D-” grade for the first 100 days.