The Muslim World Hates the U.S. More Than Ever

A ‘Friendlier’ U.S., To No Avail        

Despite Obama’s Mideast outreach, the Muslim world still hates America.

 

 

If there was one thing the Left was certain about in 2008 it was this: George W. Bush had catastrophically undermined America’s world reputation with his unprovoked aggression and use of torture. The advent of Obama would reverse the damage. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in 2007, among the best assets Obama brought to the “rebranding” of America was “his face.” The election of Obama, and his friendly approach to the Muslim world, would make the United States safer as well as more just.

No one believed this tale more fervently than Obama himself. His first official act was to direct the closing of Guantanamo Bay within one year and the elimination of harsh interrogation techniques. The “message we are sending around the world,” he intoned, “is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle . . . in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.” In Cairo a few months later, he declared “a new beginning” of relations between America and the Muslim world.   Cont. Reading >>

 



Will Rubio Roll Over or Walk Away?

Senator Marco Rubio is the man of the hour. He has deftly positioned himself as the indispensable figure in this year’s immigration debate.

Students Told to Stop ‘USA!’ Chant, Take Off American Flag Bandanas…

Students Told to Stop ‘USA!’ Chant, Take Off American Flag Bandanas…

Return to Federalism

Conservatives need to stop playing a game rigged against them.

To understand why Republicans have a “branding problem,” you first need to understand how the system is rigged against conservatives.

Such is the schizophrenic dysfunction of our politics: We constantly demand “conviction” politicians who will “do what’s right” and then condemn them, often in the same breath, for being unwilling to put aside their conviction and their sense of what’s right.

But such condemnation does not fall equally on conservatives and progressives alike. For the progressive’s principle is, at its core, more. Do more. Spend more. Spend more doing more. Any compromise of progressive principle in this regard is seen as “pragmatic.” Hence, the progressive’s heart is always in the right place.

The conservative, however, who says the federal government is not the right tool to fix the problem at hand, or that it is not Washington’s job to fix said problem, or that such a problem is itself not fixable and taking money from taxpayers to try is despotic folly: This conservative’s heart is never in the right place.

In other words, the progressive wins entirely on the principled question of direction. The conservative (or libertarian) loses entirely on principle but gets concessions on how fast we’ll go in the wrong direction. The progressive says, “Let’s move to Mars.” The conservative says, “Earth is fine.” They compromise by moving to the moon. And, before the first lunar dawn, the progressives start agitating about how Mars would be so much better.

When the classical-liberal philosopher Friedrich Hayek famously said that he couldn’t call himself a conservative because “It has . . . invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing,” he had this dynamic in mind, and you can see it on full display as progressives respond to the unfolding disaster of Obamacare by arguing for a single-payer system.

This gets to the heart of why the Republican “brand” is in such terrible shape. Over the 20th century, progressives erected a system and culture where the government in Washington is the agency of first and last resort for all of our problems. When government is expected to say yes to everything, electing the Party of No makes as much sense as hiring a priest to run a brothel.

So what is the answer? Many conservatives argue that what the GOP needs to do is start saying “yes” to things. This was the idea behind George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism. Americans want an activist government, so conservatives should find things they can be activist about, too. If the government is going to meddle, it might as well meddle in conservative ways.

While individual policies may be advisable, as a general proposition I think this is the wrong way to go. Not only does this do violence to the constitutional order conservatives are supposed to conserve, it forever puts the Right in a bidding war with the Left about what government can and should do. Conservatives will lose that fight — and possibly their souls in the process.

What’s the alternative? Well, if the game is rigged against you, continuing to play the game is the very definition of idiocy. You have to change the rules.

My own view is that conservatives should recommit themselves to federalism and states’ rights. The party of Lincoln should protect core civil rights, but beyond that, states and localities should be given as much freedom as they can handle. If California wants to become Sweden with better weather, let it. If Texas wants to become Singapore on the Rio Grande, great, go for it. And the same principle goes for cities and towns within those states.

Of course, conservatives already say they believe in federalism, but they rarely demonstrate it save when convenient. Which brings me back to the question of fidelity to principle. In principle, Republicans should look at the monumental clutter in Washington like a boat with too much ballast to stay afloat: When in doubt, throw it overboard.

In practice, Republicans should be more strategic and discriminating. That means taking positions that are right on policy, but also, when possible, highlighting issues that run counter to the (unfair) caricature of Republicans as prudish moneybags. Personally, I’d start with federal marijuana laws. The tide has turned on pot, and states are going to keep legalizing it. Why should Washington stand in their way? The beauty of federalism is that you don’t have to condone legalization in one state or prohibition in another. It’s just not Washington’s fight.

This can’t happen overnight, but the system didn’t get rigged overnight either.


By Jonah Goldberg

Uncle Sam as Santa

America’s entitlements problem

 

 

The “government of the United States of America has become an entitlements machine,” Nicholas Eberstadt writes in A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic. “As a day-to-day operation, the U.S. government devotes more attention and resources to the public transfers of money, goods, and services to individual citizens than to any other objective; and for the federal government, more

Geithner: Administration ‘Absolutely’ Prepared to Jump Off Cliff if GOP Doesn’t Budge on Rates

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said this afternoon that the Obama administration is “absolutely” prepared to let the nation go over the fiscal cliff if Republicans don’t agree to a deal that raises tax rates on the top two percent of income earners.

New York Judge Slaps Down Obama Justice Department

By Kathryn Jean Lopez

The Obama administration has been consistently arguing, since announcing a year’s grace period for some religious organizations to figure out how to violate their consciences and obey the HHS mandate, that the controversy over religious freedom and the mandate is over and the Catholics are happy.

The Edge of the Abyss

The default setting of American society is ever more liberal and statist.

By Mark Steyn

Amid the ruin and rubble of the grey morning after, it may seem in poor taste to do anything so vulgar as plug the new and stunningly topical paperback edition of my book, After America — or, as Dennis Miller retitled it on the radio the other day, Wednesday. But the business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge said long ago in an alternative universe, and I certainly could use a little. So I’m going to be vulgar and plug away. The central question of Wednesday — I mean, After America — is whether the Brokest Nation in History is capable of meaningful course correction. On Tuesday, the American people answered that question. The rest of the world will make its dispositions accordingly.

Click Here to Read Full Article»

Two Americas

The country is no longer culturally cohesive.

 

 

 

 

By Michael Barone

You know who won the election (or whether we face another Florida, 2000), and as I write, I don’t.
But whether Barack Obama is elected to a second term or Mitt Romney is elected the 45th president, the contours of their support during this fiercely fought campaign show that we live in two Americas.
The culturally cohesive America of the 1950s that some of us remember, usually glossing over racial segregation and the civil-rights movement, is no longer with us and hasn’t been for some time.
That was an America of universal media, in which everyone watched one of three similar TV channels and newscasts every night. Radio, 1930s and 1940s movies, and 1950s and early-1960s television painted a reasonably true picture of what was typically American.
That’s not the America we live in now. Niche media has replaced universal media.
One America listens to Rush Limbaugh, the other to NPR. Each America has its favorite cable news channel. As for entertainment, Americans have 100-plus cable channels to choose from, and the Internet provides many more options.

Bill Bishop highlighted the political consequences of this in his 2008 book, The Big Sort. He noted that in 1976 only 27 percent of voters lived in counties carried by one presidential candidate by 20 percent or more. In 2004, nearly twice as many, 48 percent, lived in these landslide counties. That percentage may be even higher this year.
We’re more affluent than we were in the 1950s (if you don’t think so, try doing without your air conditioning, microwaves, smartphones, and Internet connections). And we have used this affluence to seal ourselves off in the America of our choosing while trying to ignore the other America.
We tend to choose the America that is culturally congenial. Most people in the San Francisco Bay area wouldn’t consider living in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, even for much better money. Most metroplexers would never relocate to the Bay Area.
There are plenty of smart and creative and successful people in both Americas. But they don’t like to mix with each other these days.
They especially don’t like to talk about politics and the cultural issues that, despite the prominence of economic concerns today, have largely determined our political allegiances over the last two decades.
One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs, and suspicious of government. The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable, skeptical of business, and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes.
The more conservative America tends to be relatively cohesive. Evangelical Protestants and white Catholics make common cause; the 17th-century religious wars are over. Southern or northern accents don’t much matter.
That’s typical of the Republican party, which has always had core support from people who are seen as typical Americans but are not by themselves a majority in our always diverse country.
The more liberal America tends to be diverse. Like Obama’s 2008 coalition, it includes many at the top and at the bottom of the economic ladder.
That’s typical of the Democratic party, a coalition of disparate groups — immigrant Catholics and white southerners long ago, blacks and gentry liberals today.
Ronald Reagan, speaking the language of the old, universal popular culture, could appeal to both Americas. His successors, not so much. Barack Obama, after an auspicious start, has failed to do so.
As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.
Americans have faced this before. This has been a culturally diverse land from its colonial beginnings. The mid-20th-century cultural cohesiveness was the exception, not the rule.
We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War.
An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster.
Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

Waiving Freedom

 

Obama’s contempt for American constitutional democracy.

 By Thomas Sowell

 

 

Among the objections to Obamacare, one that has not gotten as much attention as it should is the president’s power to waive the law for any company, union, or other enterprise he chooses.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides for “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans. To have a law that can cost an organization millions of dollars a year either apply or not apply, depending on the whim or political interest of the president of the United States, is to make a mockery of the rule of law.
How secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man?

U.S. Military Strikes in Libya Coming Soon?

The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali — if investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration, with weeks until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.

But if we have an opportunity to capture or kill the folks who had a hand in the attack on our consulate and the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans — and presuming the Libyan government is unable, unwilling, or untrustworthy enough to take action against the perpetrators — shouldn’t our government be doing this?

(By the way, with three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst talking to the Associated Press on this . . . I guess it’s not much of a sneak attack now, huh?)

As for the “untrustworthy enough” angle on the Libyan government . . .

U.S. State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official e-mails obtained by Reuters.

But the men, who had been taken into custody the day of the attack, were released after questioning by Libyan officials because of a lack of “hard evidence” that could be used to prosecute them, the State Department emails show.

2012 Debates: Memorandum of Understanding Between The Obama & Romney Campaigns

As noted on Twitter late Monday afternoon, there are some fascinating details in the agreement outlining the rules for the debates agreed to be both campaigns.

Among the rules:

• Neither candidate is allowed to ask direct questions of the other.
• The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.
• Neither candidate may point to or cite folks in the audience besides family members.
• Rules of tonight’s debate say no “speeches, statements, or comments” by audience questioners. Good luck with that one. The rules do say that the microphone is to be cut off once the question is asked.
• The only audience participation is supposed to be the asking of the questions; no cheering, jeering, applause, or other response outside of the introductions.
• At no debate shall the moderator ask for “a show of hands” or similar calls for response.
• No closing statement tonight; for the final debate, candidates will have a choice of either a 90-second or two-minute closing statement.
• No issuing challenges or ultimatums for additional debates, no appearing at other forums, and no accepting television or radio offers that involve a debate format.

If a candidate violates the agreement, the moderator is to inform the audience. Of course, if either of these guys thinks they have some slam-dunk gotcha moment in the works, a momentary “tsk-tsk” from Candy Crowley or Bob Schieffer may be worth it.

Obama has probably been told a million times to hit the “47 percent” comment early and often. The big question is how aggressive he can be in the town-hall setting without coming across as dislikeable. (Note that Obama is really tough when his opponents can’t hit back, such as when he denounced Ryan’s plan in April 2011 to an audience that included Ryan, or when he demonized the Supreme Court in that State of the Union Address, with Alito and the gang sitting right in front of him. He loves the uneven playing field and hasn’t had to share a stage with someone who can make counterarguments since McCain in autumn 2008. Up against Romney, he hesitated, even nudging Lehrer to move on to another topic at one point.)

Tim Stanley of the Daily Telegraph: “Accepting the momentum in these numbers, Romney doesn’t need a knockout blow to win Tuesday night’s debate. He simply has to duck and jab, just like Paul Ryan did, and score a draw. The debate is Romney’s to lose. Given all the rumours flying around that Obama is going to be ‘aggressive,’ Mitt should let the Prez be as aggressive as he wants. It certainly didn’t work for Biden.”

http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/15/the-2012-debates-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-obama-and-romney-campaigns/

Car Czar Argues for Death Czars

By Daniel Foster

Steve Rattner, who honchoed the auto bailout for the Obama administration, has a full-throated defense of death panels ? rationing ? in the Times today, which is sort of refreshing, in its call-a-spade-a-spade way. Rattner says the greatest third rail in American politics is ?overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.? He goes on to argue, more or less, that Medicare needs to follow Britain?s NHS in assigning a cash-money value to the last year of life:

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that?s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan?s competition or Mr. Obama?s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program?s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it?s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled ? including Canada, Australia and New Zealand ? have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment?s
ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Death-panel hypotheticals are perfect ?intuition pumps? for drawing out latent conservative impulses in people who probably wouldn?t describe themselves as conservatives. Many, even most Americans, will at some point have to make ?stomach-wrenching choices? about end-of-life care for themselves or for loved ones. Thinking through all the possible scenarios is morally torturous, and that?s when decisions are being made between doctors and families alone. Now imagine the federal government comes in and sets the value of a marginal year of life at $48,000 ? roughly the price, and afraction of
the true unsubsidized cost, of a Chevrolet Volt   MORE