As an outgoing gift to Obama, President Bush actually promulgated this rule. His idea of courtesy, I suppose. But we're not bound by that.

Bush did it, yes, but only as a favor to Obama -- which hardly requires Obama to accept the favor. And certainly we don't need to accept it.

His aunt's illegal. Boot her, or get her paperwork in order.

The Homeland Security Department still is requiring high-level approval before federal immigration agents can arrest fugitives, a rule quietly imposed by the Bush administration days before the election of Barack Obama, whose aunt has been living in the United States illegally.

The unusual directive from the Homeland Security Department came amid concerns that such arrests might generate "negative media or congressional interest," according to a newly disclosed federal document obtained by The Associated Press.

The directive makes clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, who at the time was living in public housing in Boston. She is now believed to be living in Cleveland.

A copy of the directive, "Fugitive Case File Vetting Prior to Arrest," was released to the AP just over two months after it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. It does not mention President Obama or any members of his extended family.

Needless to say, while this rule was a personal gift from Bush to benefit Obama's aunt, it complicates and hampers the arrest of fugitives from immigration law; all such requests now require "high level" approval.

Are we going to hamper immigration enforcement for four to eight (or, in Obama's reckoning, eight to ten) years just to help his auntie evade the law?

Posted by: Ace at 01:37 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Does The One have The Balls to fight Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants on this?

The Obama White House on Monday backed away from House Speaker Nancy PelosiÂ’s support for increased federal funding of contraception in the $825-billion stimulus bill now under consideration by Congress.



That was not President ObamaÂ’s idea, a White House spokesman told CNSNews.com.



“The principles of what he thought should be in the package – that wasn’t part of that,” White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told CNSNews.com. “

I can't believe I'm in the position of rooting for Obama.

Wonderful.

Posted by: Ace at 01:30 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Hmmm.... actually taking an aggressive military step, necessarily engaging the enemy more frequently and more intensely, might increase casualties for a period of time, before greatly reducing them through victory.

Funny that Biden didn't explain this to Obama during the campaign, when Bush proposed the Surge that won Iraq.

Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Kaus makes the obvious point -- but Toyota isn't going bankrupt and is not asking for billions in federal subsidies.

Here are some other points:

The UAW is only looking at actual per-hour take-home wages, not pension plans and health benefits and other compensation which also should included. And his silly number neatly avoids the major problem of Detroit's huge outstanding obligations to past workers, too.

A company making money can afford to offer bonuses. A company losing money with every car can't. What does this have to do with Detroit? Nothing. They can't, it seems, make cars that both compete in terms of quality and price at current wage levels. Toyota can pay more (assuming he's not just making these numbers up) because they can. This has nothing to do with Detroit's problem. It's like a recovering alcoholic complaining that his non-alcoholic friend is allowed to drink.

Third: If the Japanese plants in America are actually paying workers more without unions, um, precisely what the fuck is the point of the UAW?

And, while Kaus mentions this too, it's worth repeating: Like The Surge, it's not just about numbers. It's about the rules of engagement. The UAW deliberately promulgates work rules to make their plants far less efficient than possible. That's the whole point of such rules -- efficiency means more production for fewer man-hours, and the UAW wants as many man-hours paid as possible. But this model is sinking the industry.

If the UAW would review/revise/replace the bulk of its intentionally anti-efficiency work-rules, perhaps Detroit wouldn't be in such dire straits, and perhaps UAW workers wouldn't have to give up as much in hourly compensation. But the UAW won't-- so the workers do have to give something to make up for how ludicrously anti-competitive the unions have made their factories.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

He attacks critics of Obama's stimulus plan by supposedly phonying up the "stimulus" cost per job created (or "preserved").

Krugman now:

First, thereÂ’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

Note the multiyear cost of the "stimulus" being compared to the single-year (purported) benefit of the stimulus.

Krugman then:

he average American worker earns only about $40,000 per year; why does the administration, even on its own estimates, need to offer $500,000 in tax cuts for each job created?

Krugman himself did the same tricksy math-- taking the ten-year cost of Bush's budget/tax package -- and comparing it to the one year salary of a job.

And then he even went on to defend his bullshit, claiming that a job created by a stimulus package wouldn't be around for longer than a year (or three) so why bother taking the multiyear benefit into effect?

Notice he seems to have abandoned that rationale, and assumes that Obamajobs will last forever.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems like a good time for NRO to can Kathleen Parker.

Tough as this was for KristolÂ’s promoters, he might still have survived as a columnist had it not been for an attitude of casual and reflexive disloyalty he publicly displayed towards The Times itself. A good example came in an appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on October 30. HereÂ’s the way Editor and Publisher described it:

“Appearing once again on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol, Jon Stewart's favorite whipping boy (‘Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?’), on Thursday night defended the McCain-Palin ticket, at one point informing the show's host that he was getting his news from suspect sources. ‘You're reading The New York Times too much,’ he declared. ‘Bill, you WORK for The New York Times!’ Stewart pointed out.”

That, apparently, was the last straw for the Gray Lady.

As Newsbusters notes, barely a Paul Krugman column goes by without a large error -- and some of these are even noted by the Times' Ombudsman.

Although David Brooks seems to be center-left at this point, he began his stint at the Times as a conservative, or at least Rockefeller Republican who supported Reaganite/Kempian economics. But as soon as he joined, he could offer but nothing but praise for the Times -- greatest newspaper in the world, they really try to keep bias out of their stories, etc.

So that would seem to be an absolute rule at the Times: One can never, ever criticize the paper and expect to keep one's job.

I give Kristol props for never selling out like that. Sure, he took the Times gig, but he never seemed all that impressed with it or considered it all that precious. Unlike Brooks, who lives for it.

Thanks to CJ.

Related: Chris Matthews, Eli "Chiseled Pecs" Saslow named as chief media slobberers in Bernard Goldberg's new book.

Posted by: Ace at 10:46 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

Limbaugh responds to Obama's bait.

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Meanwhile, the stimulus is larded up with provisions such as $4.19 billion for "community stabilization" -- a slush fund for ACORN and other far-left groups.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

Showing her lack of understanding on a whole host of issues in one fell swoop, Granny McBotox was on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and defended spending hundreds of millions of dollars on 'family planning' in the stimulus bill on the grounds that it will save the states money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We also heard from Congressman Boehner coming out of the meeting today that again a lot of that spending doesn't even meet the same test you just talked about right now. Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

Er, spending money now to 'save' money later isn't exactly 'stimulus'. Of course that assumes you are actually saving money later. In reality this and much of the so-called 'stimulus plan' is simply social planning and funding of pet projects by Democrats.

And by the way, why does 'family planning' cost so much? As many morons can attest to, not having sex is pretty damn inexpensive.

On the upside, I welcome Speaker Pelosi to the border enforcement camp. Obviously millions of illegals aliens are as much of a drain, if not more so, on our economy than citizens who have babies.

Thanks Nancy!

Meanwhile, some Japanese companies realize that their national interest actually requires there be some people around to populate their nation in the future are telling their workers, go home and make babies!

n a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics giant has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a rather unusual reason: to encourage them to have more babies.

"Canon has a very strong birth planning program," says the company's spokesman Hiroshi Yoshinaga. "Sending workers home early to be with their families is a part of it."

Japan in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country's low birthrate.

No word yet on whether owners of sexbots are eligible for the extra time off.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:46 AM | Comments (174)
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:13 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a bit localized, but I bet every single state legislature facing massive budget deficits, which is all of them, is also dealing with critical issues like this.

”OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - When Sen. Ken Jacobsen passes from this life to the next, he wants to be buried with his deceased cat, Sam. There's just one problem - it's illegal.”

“Jacobsen points out that burial with pets is a long-standing human tradition dating back to the Egyptian pharaohs.”

“"I'm tired of the nanny state worrying about me and my cat," he said. "I assume there's a lot of people out there with pets who understand the connection."”

“Jacobsen's bill would give cemeteries the option of burying owners with their cremated pets as long as a written request is made. The remains could be buried in a grave plot before, during or after their owner's passing.”

Right on Senator! You fight the Man! Fight the power that be! But waitÂ…opposition has arisen:

”Cemetery owners are opposed because they have to take into account the burial customs and traditions of all cultures and religions, some of which forbid burial near animals, said Paul Elvig, former president of the International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association.”

“"The ultimate insult to a Muslim would be to bury a dog or a cat near or around a burial grounds," he said.”

””The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals supports the idea.”

“"It seems totally discriminatory and mean to make these pets sit outside the graveyard gates," said Daphna Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations for PETA.”

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:45 PM | Comments (105)
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.