Rental houses in North Waziristan, really hardest hit.

As with the previous administration, this one continues the hits that keep on coming. Back then I put together a handy media template to slap together the quick wire stories.. I wonder if things have changed under Obama so much that it doesn't work anymore? more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:02 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

But Democrats don't agree.

Of course they've all read the law -- it's ten pages. Claiming to have not read it allows them to speak of vaguely-defined "concerns" without having to point out specific language in the bill they object to -- because if they did the latter, they'd be unable to find anything illegal here.

What they're attempting to do is claim they support, of course, the substance of the bill -- of course they agree with enforcing the border! -- while pretending their objection is over procedural matters. This pose allows them to pretend for the 70% of the country that supports the bill that they're on their side, at least as regards the big substantive goal of the bill.

But mouthing vague quibbles about procedural issues gets them goodwill from the 30% who oppose the bill, aka "The Democratic Base."

If they ever read the bill -- or admit they do -- they'll find this sort of Yasser Arafat-like equivocation more difficult. Because it will quickly be revealed that their supposedly procedure-only quibbles are in fact objections to the substance -- they oppose any methods of controlling immigration that are actually likely to work.

They support only the methods that won't work -- UAVs, "virtual fences," other technobabble non-solutions -- precisely because they won't work, which is why they have a pass from the Open Borders lobby to support such measures.

Essentially they're asking the bank robbers what they should do to improve vault security. The bank robbers tell them to leave the vault door open and turn off the alarms and fire the guards, and instead use "smart solutions" to guard the money, like big signs saying "Please don't take our money."

Thanks to Jake.

More: McClintock makes a stand.

And still more: Brewer tells Greta she's sent many letters to administration officials begging them for border help, and they've ignored them -- not even replied. Do your job, she tells President Lightworkerweight.

Posted by: Ace at 12:47 PM | Comments (361)
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.

Sorry for another nothing post, but this is cute. Help guide Obama down, down, down into ever-sinking popularity.

Although maybe he doesn't need your help:

A private research groupÂ’s gauge of future U.S.economic activity unexpectedly slipped in April, the first decline in more than a year and a sign that growth could slow this summer, weighing on hiring.

The Conference Board said Thursday its index of leading economic indicators edged down 0.1 percent last month, the first drop since March 2009. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had expected a gain of 0.2 percent. Â…

“Slower growth is likely in store for the second half of the year as the boost from inventories fades away,” said Tim Quinlan, economist at Wells Fargo Securities, in a research note.

Goldman Sachs economists expect growth to slow to an annualized rate of 1.5 percent in the second half of the year from more than 3 percent in the first six months of 2010.

See the link for Ed's noting that the MFM is embargoing this story (only the conservative Washington Times reported it) and how bad it is -- a 1.5% growth rate isn't really growth, as the workforce population expands at that rate, or just shy of it. This would not be deemed any sort of genuine recovery -- a real recovery includes explosive growth for several years as an economy ramps up towards its previous capacity (the "V" shaped recovery Larry Kudlow still predicts).

This would be the dreaded "L" non-recovery -- the economy falls down and then flatlines afterwards. This represents not a downturn so much as a permanentloss of economic vitality that never actually comes back. (At least in the short- to mid-term timeframe.)

A commentator suggested, cleverly I think, that Obama turned his attention away from the One Big Job he had to do -- fix the economy -- because he couldn't, and so pretended that his real One Big Job was something he could do -- sign a destructive health care bill into law. He'd get his "win" that way, the thinking went.

But that was a fatal error. The economy may still recover -- it has been almost unkillable since Reagan -- and that will save Obama.

But if it doesn't, that Halo of Unaccountability Obama wears on his head is going to rust and crumble into dust.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

Sometimes I miss Bush but not all the Bushies.

At this point, the options for Palin, DeMint and Dobson are limited. They will either repudiate PaulÂ’s candidacy or they will be tainted by PaulÂ’s extremism.

How about this Skippy, the GOP will be 'tainted' by Paul as soon as the Democrats are tainted by....

A Congressman who compares the GOP to Al Qaeda,

A state AG and Senate candidate who is lies about his military service.

A Senate candidate whose family ran a bank that lent to crooks connected to Democrats and had to be bailed out by tax payers.

Elected officials who stand a cheer a foreign leader who chides Americans for our immigration laws while his country's are far more severe. (see below)

And on and on and on.

I know we've been doing the Rand Paul thing for two days. I get that people want to pull together and protect 'our' guy. Personally, I like that our side holds our guys accountable. Still, it's frustrating that Democrats don't and they are continually rewarded for their lack of scruples.

So no Mikey, I will not say the GOP needs to prostrate to you over Rand Paul. Call me after you spend some time using the pages of the Washington Post to get the Democrats to hold their own accountable like we are with Paul. If you don't want to do that...STFU and go away.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:41 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm putting this short clip here because it should be used by the campaign of every border state Republican running this year.

The AZ law came about because of mounting public outrage over criminal activity committed by Mexican gangs. Crimes such as kidnapping, home invasion, and murder. The senseless murder of one rancher and his dog was the final straw.

Now Calderon has the cheek to come here and criticize how Americans should react to the criminal invasion that is originating in his own country. You gotta be kidding me.

Put yourself in the shoes of anyone who lives in an area that is unsafe because of criminal activity committed by illegals' gang organizations, and imagine what they must feel when they see all the Democrats rise to honor Calderon.

Thanks, Democrats. You could have sat there in polite silence and deprived us of a club to use against you. Glad you just couldn't contain yourselves.

Posted by: LauraW at 11:15 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 166 words, total size 2 kb.

Sugar high:

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

It's amazing we've gotten to the point where this is even an issue.

In a major victory for the Obama AdministrationÂ’s detention policy, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled on Friday that foreign nationals held at a U.S. military prison at Bagram airbase outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, do not have a right to challenge in U.S. courts their continued imprisonment. The ruling overturned a federal judgeÂ’s decision that the Supreme CourtÂ’s ruling two years ago allowing habeas challenges by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay extends to Bagram, at least for non-Afghan foreign nationals captured outside of Afghanistan and taken there for detention. The three-judge panel was unanimous in Maqaleh, et al., v. Gates (Circuit docket 09-5265). The issue is likely to be taken to the Supreme Court by detaineesÂ’ lawyers, but review there is no certainty.

...On the one hand, it rejected the government argument that Boumediene had adopted a bright-line rule that habeas never extends to another country where the U.S. has a military facility, unless it is like Guantanamo Bay where the U.S. has the factual equivalent of national sovereignty. But it also rejected an argument by Bagram detaineesÂ’ lawyers that habeas extends to a U.S. military base overseas if the U.S. in fact has control of the facility and its management. Neither of those positions, Judge Sentelle wrote, squared with what the Supreme Court actually decided in Boumediene.

I'm glad there's some sanity in the federal judiciary on detainee maters. We'll see if it extends all the way up to the Supreme Court.

About SCOTUS, it'll be interesting to see how much Kagan will talk about these things. Liberals are worried she'll be too deferential to the executive. If it pans out (and that's 50/50 at best), she'll be a welcomed improvement over Stevens in at least that area.

Late Addition: As commenters have pointed out the "major victory for the Obama AdministrationÂ’s detention policy" is pretty funny. I wonder if Gibbs will graciously admit that they inherited this from the previous administration? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.

My defense for not calling that out originally is the cable guy was here fixing my modem. Nice enough fellow but how come the 'cable guy' is never a hot 'cable gal'?

Posted by: DrewM at 10:11 AM | Comments (74)
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

With the veto pen, all over a tax increase. When he moves, he slices like a f'n hammer.

Go read his letter, it's so good. My favorite excerpt:

The citizens of New Jersey have seen their taxes go up one hundred and fifteen (115) times over the last 8 years. Today, I act so that it will not occur for the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) time. After the dual failures of out-of-control State spending and the inability to curb a 70% rise in property taxes over the last 10 years, the supporters of this bill want to continue down the path of ever higher taxes, which has crippled our stateÂ’s economy and led to even more job losses. I'm on an integrity kick. Do you know where I'm coming from with integrity? Do you like your jobs? Well do you?

Kind of a rush post, busy day at work, I mighta messed up the quote.

via Guy Fawkes

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:48 AM | Comments (282)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Le sigh.

Rand Paul's not done saying silly things yet. On ABC's Good Morning America he ran full tilt into an amateur mistake:

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Give the man a prize. He just said the magic words that will guarantee he stays in the news cycle for at least another 24 hours. Do I agree with the President's attack on BP? Of course not. He's wrong. But that doesn't make his political point-scoring "un-American."

One of the core American freedoms, something not enjoyed even in other parts of "Western Civilization", is the right to score political points by lambasting others. As the Ninth Circuit put it yesterday (PDF), "The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment."

The President's attack on BP is both offensive and based on a faulty premise. But it's not un-American. And after spending the past year or more decrying the same Democratic smear against the Tea Parties, Rand should have known better.

What an amateur. As Drew put it yesterday: the MFM will make Paul the new face of the Republican Party for at least the next six months or so. Oops.

Insta-Update: Several commenters say it is un-American if Obama "puts his boot heel on the throat of BP" and so Rand is right.

Except that Rand didn't say that. He specifically called the President's criticism of business—his words—un-American. That's just plain wrong. It has the added something of being awfully bad politics, so there's that too.

Criticizing business has a centuries-long history in the United States and at the moment a plurality of Americans seem to agree with the President. I think Obama's wrong about this (and those Americans who agree with him too), but that doesn't mean he or they are un-American for criticizing BP.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:37 AM | Comments (548)
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

Shut Your Whore Mouth

Thanks to Krukke1, who reports that this video gave her the cooter-sweats something fierce.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:32 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.