TightyRighty.net

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.

I heard something put in context this morning on my drive to the office which blew me away.

A couple of days ago we heard President Obama, to much media fanfare, issue the “$100M Cabinet Budget Challenge” to his cabinet, asking them to find $100M in budget savings.

The federal government has “a confidence gap when it comes to the American people,” Obama said at the White House.

“We’ve got to earn their trust. They’ve got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely.”

The edict is part of Obama’s “commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending” and “reform the government,” a senior administration official said.

To refresh our memories, we are all familiar with the Stimulus package – 787 BILLION DOLLARS of pork laden legislation which was so critical to getting our economy back on its feet, even though most of this spending is not stimulative and much of it will not be spent this year.

Next, we saw President Obama’s “ransom the future” budget proposal featuring a 1.75 TRILLION DOLLAR budget deficit in 2009 and a 1.2 TRILLION DOLLAR budget deficit in 2010.

I laughed when I heard about the “$100M Cabinet Budget Challenge”, but to the average Joe (except plumbers named Joe) $100M sounds like a lot.

However, to put the “100M Cabinet Budget Challenge” in perspective, $100M is roughly the DAILY interest on the 787 BILLION DOLLAR Stimulus package and roughly the amount of interest the country will accrue EVERY 12 HOURS on the 2009 budget deficit.

That said, the “$100M Cabinet Budget Challenge” looks extremely paltry to me.

I was listening to my podcasts the other day and I came across the April 14 Laura Ingraham podcast extolling the virtues of Texas Governor Rick Perry.  While I wholeheartedly agree with Perry’s support for Texas’ 10th Amendment rights and I do admit he looks pretty good compared to virtually anybody in Washington, I don’t think Rick Perry is the answer to the conservative leadership vacuum.

You were not here Laura, so you did not see Gov. Perry flip-flop on border security before/after his last election.  In his election ads, Gov. Perry stood on the border and talked of the importance of border security and all the great things he was doing to ensure border security.  Within weeks after being elected, he stated that a border fence was a joke.   Perry was also a prime mover behind the Trans Texas Corridor, the one of the biggest land grabs in our lifetimes.  This plan called for taking a very wide swath of land, several thousand miles long, and developing highways, railways, utility right of way as well as private development.

No, I don’t think that a border governor who does not see the utility of a border fence and who thinks that taking a citizen’s private property for someone else’s private usage is acceptable is the guy we need to champion the conservative cause.

Yesterday was the credit card companies.  A few weeks ago was the car companies and a few weeks before that, the big banks.  Pretty soon it will be the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies called down to the White House to be harangued by the mean headmaster.

Does anyone find it strange that the President is using his position to call private businesses into his office and tell them how to run their companies and industries?  When is he going to call in those folks who are strung out on credit card debt because they lived beyond their means and tell them to get their act in order?  I am all for the President using his bully pulpit to drive major initiatives within our country (even though I don’t like most of the Obama proposals to date), but using the White House for this populist scolding of “evil” businesses is just pandering.

Sure, I think credit card companies can be abusive.  I think Capital One runs the most hypocritical ads implying they don’t kill you with late fees when they are one of the worst for that.  But I vote with my feet and if I don’t like what the credit card company is doing, then I don’t do business with them.  Someone might contend that not everyone has good credit and therefore doesn’t have the luxury to pay-off or move balances.  I reply that those folks should not have credit card debt.  Call me cold, but that’s how I see it.

But back to my original point – The President is the President, a leader, a statesman, a visionary, not Mr. Murphy, whose office you were sent to at Brother Rice  HS when you acted up in class. Mr President – quit acting like the principal doling out detentions (or expelling Rick Wagoner, as it were) and provide some leadership on the real issues facing this country.

So as to not sound like an Obama-bashing demagogue, I do want to give credit to the President on a couple of matters where he is deserving of kudos.

First – Staying the course in Iraq and implementing a “surge” in Afganistan are clearly wise moves which will maintain and strengthen national security.

Secondly, boycotting the UN Racism Conference was a good idea. This event is nothing more than a UN sanctioned Israel bashing session for which our absence, along with Canada, Italy, etc, diminishes the luster.   We should not be providing credibility to events such as this which denigrate one of our closest allies.

That said – kudos to you Mr. President for your stand in these areas. You have done the right things here, and I want to recognize you for that.

Whereas former President George Bush courageously put up with slings and arrows for most of his administration in order to stay the course on national security, President Obama has proven that he places politics far and away above national security, and for this we should be very, very concerned.

In his attempt to smear the Bush administration by releasing the memos which detail enahanced interrogation techniques, President Obama has weakened our national security in a number of ways:

He has provided Al Queda and other terrorist organizations with a veritable training manual on how to overcome these techniques.

Although he traipsed down to Langley to provide a pep talk to the CIA, release of these memos will likely have a chilling effect on agents who may be disuaded from using similar enhanced techniques in the future due to the potential prosecution risks.

Release of these memos will likely have a chilling effect on future government attorneys who will be reluctant to take unpopular, yet legally supportable positions in the interest of national security, if there is potentially prosecution risk from future administrations.

Finally, by disclosing these memos and decrying these techniques, he has taken a powerful tool out of the hands of our intelligence service.  How do we know these techniques are powerful?  The memos tell us outright some of the successes, and the silence of the redacted text is deafening.  Mark Thiessen has written an interesting piece at the Washington Post regarding the effectiveness of these techniques.   Additionally, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had “high-value information,” then omitted that admission from a public version of his assessment.

Is this the kind of change we wanted – trading national security for hardball politics?  I think not.

When is political debate unhealthy?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Senior White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday suggested the Tea Party movement is an unhealthy reaction to the tough economic climate facing the country.

Axelrod was asked on CBS’s Face the Nation about the spreading and very public disaffection with the president’s fiscal policies seen at the Tea Party rallies around the country last week.

“I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy”, Axelrod said.

How come every Democrat who first voted for the war, when they saw the public turning against it, wrapped themselves in the flag of patriotic dissent  and were named as heroes?

How come when hundreds of violent demonstrators turned out for every G-?? (insert number here) summit or thousands of Mexican protesters turned out, complete with Mexican flags and upside down US flags, that was healthy debate?

So why is it unhealthy when hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens peaceably turn out to protest the tax and spend policies of the Obama Administration?  Is it because these folks who pay taxes don’t deserve a voice – just shutup and pay your taxes?  Is it because these folks are concerned that the fiscal irresponsibility of the current administration threatens to bankrupt our country?  Is it because these folks don’t want to see future generations saddled with a debt load which will ensure a lower standard of living for our kids and grandkids?

No – it is none of these above.  “Unhealthy” debate is obviously any debate the Obama Administration does not agree with!!