A sign of the collapse of Barack Obama's presidency is the fact that he is now facing a congressional rebellion on foreign policy, the one area where it is most difficult for the Congress to set a direction in opposition to the chief executive. But the Senate has just voted, over the administration's objections, to impose economic sanctions aimed at cutting off Iran's gasoline supply. Although it is an exporter of crude oil, Iran lacks refinery capacity and has to import gasoline. Thus:
In a surprisingly swift move last Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the United States Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refinery capabilities.
The Senate move reveals an administration losing control of even its own party in foreign policy dealings, as US President Barack Obama has tried to maintain engagement with Iran aimed at curbing its nuclear program, which the Islamic Republic insists is for peaceful purposes. Along with scores of Democrats who favored the bill over the administration's objections, the effort was supported by Iran hawks…and was characterized by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell as a shot at Obama. "If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then congress must," McConnell said.
But the power of Congress is limited after all. Iran has just announced that it will graciously agree to let the West help move its nuclear clock forward. The Iranians have been having trouble removing impurities, but now, in an agreement backed by the Obama administration, Iran may choose to ship its stockpiles to Russia, which will eliminate the impurities and enrich the uranium on the regime's behalf.
With the Iranian regime facing widespread popular opposition from within and the prospect of a crippling economic embargo from without—what better way is there for our president to snatch an American defeat from the jaws of victory?
"Iran: We Can Live with UN Uranium Deal," AP via MSNBC, February 2
Iran said on Tuesday that it was ready to send its uranium abroad for further enrichment as requested by the UN. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the decision in an interview with state Iranian television. He said Iran will have "no problem" giving the West its low-enriched uranium and taking it back several months later when it is enriched by 20 percent….
Still, it was unclear how much of a concession the Ahmadinejad comments represented, even though he appeared to be saying for the first time that Iran was willing to ship out its enriched uranium and wait for it to be returned in the form of fuel for its Tehran research reactor. But his time frame of four or five months appeared to fall short of the year that Western officials say it would take for Iran's enriched fuel to be turned into fuel rods for the reactor.
If that difference cannot be bridged, it could allow Iranian officials to assert that the deal failed due to Western foot-dragging….
Ahmadinejad also did not address whether his country was ready to ship out most of its stockpile in one batch—another condition set by the six world powers endorsing the fuel swap.
2. What Part of "No" Don't They Understand?
If the suggestion below catches on, the Democrats may be about to cross a line that the American people will never forgive: they are proposing to amend the Constitution to remove the First Amendment.
The First Amendment stands in the way of the left's crusade for government control of election campaigns. And so John Kerry is now proposing a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations have no right to free speech.
As the Supreme Court recently ruled, a corporation is just a commercial association of individuals. To deny a corporation's right to free speech is to deny the rights of the individuals who make it up. TIA Daily, for example, may be written mostly by me, but it is published by a corporation, Tracinski Publishing Company. Same thing goes for the New York Times. And for NBC News.
Of course, all of these entities are covered by a supposed exemption for "the media." But that simply means that we are allowed to operate by special permission, not by right. And if it is taken seriously, this special loophole for "the media" would require the government to grant official credentials to distinguish "genuine" media companies from "fake" media companies created for the purpose of electioneering.
Take the case of NBC, which is a small subsidiary of a much larger company, General Electric, which has enormous and varied economic and political interests. So is NBC exempt—or do its broadcasts constitute "corporate speech"? And if, say, "Saturday Night Live" decides to lampoon a public official during the months before an election, would that count as "free speech"?
This is why our Founding Fathers, in creating a charter to protect our liberties, protected free speech first, and it is also why they were very clear and unequivocal in cutting off the reach of government. They declared that "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." So what part of "no" do the Democrats not understand?
"Sen. Kerry Backs Changing Constitution to Deal with Supreme Court Decision," Susan Crabtree, The Hill, February 2
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday threw his support behind a constitutional amendment aimed at gutting the impact of a Supreme Court decision lifting key restrictions on corporate campaign spending.
"I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals," Kerry said during a Senate Rules Committee hearing.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is the only other senator so far to back the idea of taking on the Herculean task of passing a constitutional amendment in response to the high court's 5-4 Citizens United ruling….
Pelosi has put Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in charge of a task force that will produce legislation aimed at blunting the court's ruling.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, will serve as Van Hollen's Senate counterpart and will try to work quickly to pass a legislative package curbing the power of corporations and unions before this year's midterm congressional elections begin in earnest.
3. "This Budget Is a Choice"
The Wall Street Journal has a good overview of President Obama's proposed budget. In essence, it is an attempt to make expanded government spending permanent. Under this budget, the government would gobble up an additional five percent of the American economy, matching its largest historical extent in World War II.
But help is on the way, and that's why my main link is to the absolutely terrific statement below from a Wisconsin congressman. Notice the impact of the tea party movement and its ideas: the congressman talks in terms of America's "founding principles" and the individual versus collectivism.
"Ryan: 'Two Futures'," Robert Costa, National Review Online, February 1
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tells National Review Online that President Obama's budget "is not like most budgets, with some tax-code tinkering and spending." No, he says, "this budget is a choice. We are about to make a decision whose consequences will last for generations."
"This budget presents a choice of two futures," Ryan says. "Don't look at the president's rhetoric, look at his actions. His substance implies a different reality. Not only is this budget worse than the last one, but it triples our debt within ten years, features gushers of tax increases, and relies on some partisan commission to do the heavy lifting on fiscal policy after the next election. Make no mistake: This is a budget aimed to advance the administration's philosophy and ideology. By increasing taxes and letting the country spiral into debt, this budget is a firm step toward transforming America into a collectivist society overseen by a social-welfare state."
"The fiscal future of America, however, is still in the hands of the people," says Ryan. "It is not too late to turn things around and inject our economy with the freedom to grow. Republicans have offered voters a roadmap. The president, CBO , and Peter Orszag have all acknowledged that it is a credible plan. We want to talk to the American people, and listen to them, like adults, with crystal-clear alternatives based upon the founding principles of this country and let them decide. This budget is about more than specific programs or policies. It is really about the American idea, and whether we want to move towards a European-style welfare state. I know that seems like those are big words, but those are the stakes. It is hard to come to another conclusion when you look at our debt and how we are spending. We are in a very dire fiscal situation."
This year, Ryan says, "will be the year for the GOP to show Americans that they are no longer the opposition party, but the alternative party. The president acknowledged that in Baltimore last week. We had a good discussion, and I'm happy he came, but at the end of the day, we come to this from a different premise. We believe that the individual is the nucleus of American life, and they see the government in that role. That is our big difference."
"This is a choice of two futures," he reiterates. "It's not too late to make the right decision."
4. The Guantanamo Mutiny
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to transfer captured al-Qaeda operatives to domestic prisons and give them civilian trials is proving to be the Obama administration's other great political disaster. The plan is extremely unpopular and is now facing a congressional mutiny—not to mention the kind of ridicule thrown at it in the article below, which recounts the administration's failure to find a venue for the trials and replies: "Gee, if only the United States had a secure military-type prison 90 miles offshore where it could not only safely house these accused evildoers but try them as well."
Unfortunately, this is more than a political disaster. It is looking like Obama may have to keep the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay open and try al-Qaeda's operatives in military tribunals after all. But he will do it after having declared to the whole world that this policy is morally illegitimate. So much for improving America's image abroad.
It's no wonder that some people are already beginning to call for Eric Holder's resignation, and that leads us to the next stage of the administration's collapse: the point at which it begins to lose key personnel as they are forced to resign.
The next target is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, the abrasive former congressman who is under fire from Sarah Palin for calling a group of liberal lawmakers "[expletive deleted] retards." What a way to win friends and influence people! Which brings me to the most interesting part of the story: who leaked this to the press? It looks like Obama's own supporters are starting to rat out the most obnoxious and incompetent members of his administration.
"If Not NYC, Where Else Could Obama's Administration Possibly Try the Guantanamo Bay Prisoners?" Andrew Malcolm, Los Angeles Times, February 1
Now that the Obama administration's Justice Department appears ready to deny the publicity-seeking self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, his alleged cohorts and their defense attorneys the brightly-lit global stage of Broadway and the Big Apple for the trials, the debate begins over where best to hold them….
Gee, if only the United States had a secure military-type prison 90 miles offshore where it could not only safely house these accused possessed evildoers but try them as well.
Now comes a new Rasmussen Reports poll that could make President Obama hit his forehead with the palm of his hand: Why didn't we think of this?
Rasmussen found 44% of US voters suggesting the trials of Guantanamo Bay prisoners be held in a place called Guantanamo Bay, which is 90 miles offshore on the island called Cuba. Thirty-three percent don't like that idea, but weren't volunteering their town. And 23% couldn't decide….
Turns out, few of the other countries that were so eager to have Guantanamo closed were so eager to imprison its inhabitants on their soil. And it also turns out that, if released, about 1 in 5 of these guys went right back into combat against American and allied troops, which is a dangerous thing.
So despite the promises and the Executive Order, in fact, there's still no new or maybe firm date for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
5. Environmentalism's Berlin Wall
The last week has seen an important change in the coverage of Climategate in the British press—a change that is likely to make it over to this side of the Atlantic and begin to influence the American press. Jack Wakeland sent me the following comments, which he said should be reviewed by someone who is "slightly less excited." I'm not sure that I qualify. Here are Jack's remarks:
"The Times and Daily Telegraph have launched a newspaperman's crusade against the IPCC's 'Glaciergate.' Both papers are reporting extensively in numerous stories about mistaken, false, and biased findings about glaciers in the IPCC's 2007 climate change report.
"All of these newspaper stories are being printed as straight news, not analysis, commentary, or opinion. This is a sea change. Gone are the days that fraudulent environmentalist scare stories and pseudo-scientific proofs of 'global warming' will be printed as straight news in the major British press, not without the other side—the side of rational and objective science—getting the straight news coverage first.
"Both The Times and Daily Telegraph are beating the drums for the removal of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, and they're doing it by covering 'Glaciergate' as a straight news story about political corruption. The Times has even gone so far as to report claims that Dr. Pachauri deliberately let stand statements that he knew were false about rapidly disappearing Himalayan glaciers, in order 'to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.'
"Climate criminals are now being called out by name by the establishment British press and being convicted of their frauds in straight news stories by the normal techniques of good journalism.
"This is the fruit of Climategate at the CRU: the presumption of legitimacy has been stripped from the AGW crowd. From now on, the British press will question their bogus claims and will pursue those questions all of the way down until they find either legitimate scientific controversy—or ideological posturing and grant application fraud.
"This is not to say that the British press have corrected all of their false premises about environmentalism. Far from it. The British press are fighting for the truth about global warming in the mistaken belief that it is being discredited by a handful of corrupt and criminal hacks at the CRU and the IPCC. The article summary in today's Daily Telegraph says it all: 'Faulty science published by the United Nations' climate change body is in danger of obscuring a "much larger truth," a senior government official warned yesterday, amid fears of growing public skepticism about the reality of global warming.'
"The British press expects to scrub off a crust of corrupt and misleading statements to leave the shining truth of man-made global warming pure and untainted. In their vigor to clean away the falsehoods, the scrub brush will go deep. It will go in a whole lot deeper than they expect. It will go all of the way down to the core. And when all the scrubbing and brushing and cleaning is complete—there will be nothing left of the AGW theory."
That was yesterday. Today, Jack saw that the trend had spread to a leftist British newspaper, The Guardian—see the main link below—and sent me a follow-up comment.
"Environmentalist Fred Pearce has become an anti-climate fraud crusader. With Mr. Pearce's new journalistic obsession, the scientific left in Great Britain is now in full and open rebellion against the AGW establishment.
"They think that they're fighting to right the listing ship of legitimate man-made global warming science. Instead, they're sinking it. And they're sinking it fast!
"This is huge. This is even bigger than the tea party movement. This has the potential to become as big as Thatcherism and Reaganism and the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is quickly snowballing into the fall of environmentalism. And it is happening very, very fast. Information-age fast.
"One more month of this assault, and the whole environmentalist school will be in cultural shambles. Four more months and environmentalists won't be able to show their faces in public.
"We've waited 25 long years for good and rational scientists and commentators to hack away at the political defenses of the ruling AGW clique. Now the waiting is over. Man made global warming is dead as a scientific, cultural, moral, and political cause."
"Strange Case of Moving Weather Posts and a Scientist Under Siege," Fred Pearce, The Guardian, February 1
The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.
[CRU head Phil] Jones and his Chinese-American colleague Wei-Chyung Wang, of the University at Albany in New York, are being accused of scientific fraud by an independent British researcher over the contents of a research paper back in 1990….
It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas.
The pair, with four fellow researchers, concluded that the urban influence was negligible….
British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan accused Jones and Wang of fraud. He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.
Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication."…
Jones told the Guardian he was not able to comment on the allegations. Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more."
6. "The Zone of Freedom Is Opening the Zone of Culture"
Here is a little story of what is going right in the world—and what we won with the "surge" in Iraq. It tells the story of the re-establishment of an old, pre-Saddam Iraqi tradition of literary salons. Now, don't expect too much of these salons—which are largely devoted to studying Arabic poetry—just as you shouldn't expect too much of Iraq's turbulent politics.
But the Iraqis themselves get the big picture. As an Iraqi politician says to the audience at one of the salons, "The zone of freedom is opening the zone of culture…. I call on all intellectuals to help us with the next phase, to bring in new values to replace those of the last 35 years."
And Iraq is the only place in the Arab world today where that is likely to happen.
"Speaking Freely Where Fear Rules," John Leland, New York Times, February 1
At the end of a week that included two spectacular bomb attacks, Ali al-Nijar left his home to talk about poetry. Mr. Nijar, a retired professor of agriculture, was squeezed in among 60 others at a weekly literary salon on Baghdad's Mutanabi Street, one of about a dozen salons that have sprung up around the city in the last two years as violence has dropped.
"This is a product of freedom," Mr. Nijar said, waiting for the featured speakers to arrive. The topic for the week was a poet named Abdul Wahab al-Bayati, one of the founders of modern Iraqi poetry….
For centuries salons were a vital part of Iraqi intellectual life, places where people of different classes or sects met to discuss culture, literature or ideas. At one time Baghdad had more than 200 salons, about a quarter of them run by Jews, said Tariq Harb, a lawyer who is a regular at several salons and hosts his own.
But during Saddam Hussein's presidency, the salons dwindled away or went underground, as people objected to government control or feared the presence of government spies. In the sectarian violence that followed the 2003 American-led invasion, people were often afraid to meet in public….
The crowd included Shiite and Sunni clerics, women with and without head scarves, and even women smoking cigarettes, a taboo in Iraqi public life. Ms. Souhail did not cover her head.
From the small stage a member of Parliament from Ms. Souhail's alliance sounded suspiciously as if he were stumping for votes, which is against the salon's rules. "The zone of freedom is opening the zone of culture," said the lawmaker, Hachim al-Hassani. "The dictatorship closed the zones of culture. Freedom has led us to events like this."
Mr. Hassani hastened to wrap up and continue to another engagement. "I can't talk about the electoral process, because I am forbidden from talking about the election," he told the crowd. "I call on all intellectuals to help us with the next phase, to bring in new values to replace those of the last 35 years."…
After the attacks of recent months that destroyed several government and commercial buildings and killed hundreds, she said that there was a growing sense of fear in the capital, but that it would strengthen rather than end the salons. "We are a living nation, not a dead nation, and that's what these are about."
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
0 comments:
Post a Comment