CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Obama's Unbalanced State of the Union

According to the Associated Press, Obama's State of the Union doesn't add up. I couldn't agree more.

Obama's speech did indeed recycle themes from last year's State of the Union. Unfortunately, the speech was not one of Obama's better efforts. It was too long and fell flat.

Rather than listening to the voters who have made it abundantly clear that they want less government spending, Obama called for even more spending. Worse, in typical Obama fashion the President tried to have it both ways -- saying he wanted to freeze some federal spending while he proposed one spending program after another. Like Obama's spending agenda the speech was unbalanced.

Here are four of the "imbalances" found in the fact checking the Associated Press did on Obama's speech

ObamaCare

Obama Assertion: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
 The Facts: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions. To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare. In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors.

Earmarks

Obama Assertion: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
The Facts: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

Republican Ideas

Obama Assertion: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
The Facts: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again. Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate. Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies. Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.

National Debt

Obama Assertion: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.
The Facts: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" - but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.

President Obama could have and should have done better.

The State of the Union is recycled

To paraphrase the campaign phrase of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, it's still the lack of jobs and excessive spending, stupid!

You can hardly read anything about politics these days without having Obama's so-called pivot thrown in your face. Obama's virtual turn on a dime is so far nothing more than a serious spin effort. It seeks to capitalize upon Obama's Tucson moment and try to appear as though he is "pivoting" away from his deeply held extreme far left views under which Obama governed for two years.

The effort to convince voters that Obama is pivoting away from his two-year effort to lurch the country far to the left is the result of the voters' repudiation of the Obama agenda. The repudiation is irrefutable. In three nationalized elections, the Obamacrats successively lost the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, the Massachusetts's Senate seat the left wing long-thought belonged to the Kennedy family, and the Pelosi led House of Representatives in. Even a president as obstinate as Obama finally came to realize that even he has to "deal with the world as we find it."

In last year's State of the Union, President Obama promised to focus on jobs:

That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

On New Years Day Obama again resolved to focus on jobs:

As President, that’s my commitment to you: to do everything I can to make sure our economy is growing, creating jobs, and strengthening our middle class.  That’s my resolution for the coming year.

By all accounts in tonight's State of the Union address Obama will once again, declare that his top priority will be jobs.

Unfortunately, Obama appears to suffer from attention deficit disorder. At least he does with regard to his promises to focus on jobs. Even Democratic National Committee Chair Kaine admits Obama was too busy with wars and ObamaCare to focus on American jobs.

We also have reason to believe that Obama's failed promise to focus on jobs will not be the only theme he recycles in tonight's speech. The main stream media is replete with articles highlighting the expectation that Obama will also recycle his woefully inadequate proposal to freeze a relatively small portion of the federal government's spending:

• THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: “The Move Is Almost Identical To The Freeze Obama Called For In His Address To The Nation Last Year At This Time — His Current Proposal Would Cover Five Years, Not Three Years — And Ultimately It May Have Little Effect.” (“Obama To Call For Nonsecurity Spending Freeze,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/25/11)

• THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “The Freeze Won't Touch Some Of The Budget's Biggest Items, such as Medicare, Social Security and defense spending, nor will it apply to homeland-security spending or foreign aid.” ... “The President's Plan Would Save About $26 Billion Over Five Years, According To The White House Budget Proposal For The Current Fiscal Year. Those Savings Would Be Dwarfed By The $100 Billion In Cuts For This Year Alone That Many House Republicans Are Pushing.” (“Obama To Call For Nonsecurity Spending Freeze,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/25/11)

• THE NEW YORK TIMES: “Those Exempted Areas Include Most Of The Federal Budget, Including The Biggest And Fastest-Growing Spending Categories like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and national security, along with interest payments on the nation’s debt.” (“Obama To Seek Partial Freeze In Spending As Deficit Move,” The New York Times, 1/25/11)

• REUTERS: “A Freeze On That Type Of Spending Would Not Apply To The Huge Entitlement Programs -- Such As Social Security And Medicare -- At The Heart Of America's Deficit Problem.” (“Obama To Propose Spending Freeze But Can't Avoid Fight,” Reuters, 1/25/11)

• THE WASHINGTON POST: “To A Striking Degree, Obama Appears Poised To Recycle Themes And Ideas He Has Offered Many Times Before. He will address ‘investments’ in education, infrastructure and energy innovation in the speech - three ideas he first started discussing as far back as his first address to Congress in 2009. That same year, he banned earmarks from his big economic stimulus bill; Tuesday night, he will call for an earmark ban budget-wide.  He will talk about the need to emphasize creating jobs above all else - just as he did last year, when he said ‘jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.’  And when he raises a $78 billion defense savings proposal, it will be one that has already been given a full public airing by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, administration officials said.” ... “On The Economy, Obama Is Expected To Make No Effort To Break Ground In The One Area He Has Repeatedly Called A Critical Focus: Deficit Reduction. More than two months after his bipartisan deficit commission first unveiled a blueprint for reining in the national debt, Obama has yet to take a position on it, and administration officials say he will not do so in his address.” (“Obama To Propose Five-Year Spending Freeze In State Of The Union Address,” The Washington Post, 1/25/11)

There is not a whole lot more to be said about Obama's recycled promises to focus on jobs and to freeze some federal spending except to recal that old saying, fool me once ...

Meet Reince Priebus new RNC Chairman

The Republican National Committee selected Reince Priebus as its new chairman on Friday. 

Priebus replaces Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and the party's first African-American chairman whose two-year tenure was marked by high spending, financial debt and verbal gaffes.

Priebus, 38, is a former chair of the Wisconsin GOP and the committee's former general counsel.

During his campaign for the RNC Chairmanship, Priebus promised to put the RNC back on a sound financial footing:

I will run a tight ship at the RNC. I will keep expenses low. I will put in strong and serious controls. We will raise the necessary funds to make sure we are successful. We will work to regain the confidence of our donor base and I will personally call our major donors to ask them to rejoin our efforts at the RNC.

In Wisconsin, Priebus is known as a conservative who considers the TEA Party an extension of the state's Republican Party. In Wisconsin last year, Priebus worked with the TEA Party, joining forces to help the GOP carry all of the state's big races.

Republican Scott Walker, a former County of Milwaukee executive, defeated Democrat and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in the Wisconsin governor's race, replacing retiring Democrat Gov. James Doyle. Businessman Ron Johnson, defeated longtime Democrat U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold. Wisconsin Democrats also lost control of the state Assembly and Senate, yielding control of both houses to Republicans for the first time since 1998.

Politico’s Andy Barr and Alex Burns talk about the road ahead for RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in the following video:

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with his 'I Have A Dream Speech'

Take some time today to think about the life and times of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. America is a better place because of his efforts.

Watch listen or read King's great "I Have A Dream Speech." It needs no further intoduction.

Transcript of King's "I Have A Dream Speech Transcript":

Martin Luther King Jr I Have A Dream Speech Transcript “I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Herman Cain announces formation of presidential exploratory committee

Conservative commentator and radio talk show host Herman Cain is the first potential GOP 2012 candidate to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee.

Cain has been hinting for months that he intends to run for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. The exploratory committee formalizes the process of allowing Cain assess his ability to obtain the necessary financial resources and grassroots support needed to win the nomination.

Cain addresses his longshot status head on:

"People who say that Herman Cain has no chance of winning the nomination for the Republican Party, or win the in presidency, I simply say 'Thank you.' Because all my life, I have been in situations where I wasn't supposed to become VP of Pillsbury, I wasn't supposed to be able to turn Godfather's Pizza around. I wasn't supposed to succeed in climbing the corporate ladder in corporate America. So to the people who say I don't have a chance, I say 'Thank you.' Because that inspires me."

Cain has a compelling story. He was born to working-class parents in Georgia, earned a degree in mathematics from Morehouse College and a master’s in computer science from Purdue. He worked for the Navy on fire-control systems for ships and fighter planes. Cain then moved to the business world Coca-Cola, Pillsbury, and Burger King—and eventually became CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, which he ran for 10 years.

Cain has never held elective office. He ran in the 2004 Georgia GOP primary for U.S. Senate. He is also credited by some with being instrumental in defeating HillaryCare.

Watch Cain talk with Greta Van Susteren about why he may run for President in the video:

Mark Penn on Obama's need for an Oklahoma City event flashback

As President prepares to take up the mantel of consoler in chief and address the nation in the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona, we should remember that on November 4, 2010 political operative Mark Penn, longtime Democratic pollster, told Chris Matthews that what Obama really needs to reconnect to the American electorate is an Oklahoma City moment.

Watch the video:

Tonight Obama has his opportunity for his Oklahoma City moment. Perhaps Obama can use his moment to apologize for his extreme rhetoric as he plays the role of "consoler in chief."

Palin responds to the left-wing's 'reprehensible' 'blood libel'

Sarah Palin responds to the left-wing's despicable effort to blame her and the right for the evil act of a deranged shooter in Arizona.

In a video statement titled "America's Enduring Strength," Palin hits back, in a very civil manner, against the "irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event":

Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Palin goes on to point out the error of those who tried to blame this senseless act of a madman on political rhetoric:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?

Let Palin speak for herself. Watch the video or read her statement below:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Palin's statement strikes the perfect tone to counter the left's reprehensible use of blood libel in the left-wing hate machine's failed efforts to blame the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on Palin and the right. 

Full text of Sarah Palin’s statement:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today. Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories.

Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

 

Only 33% believe 'harsh political tone' had anything to do with Arizona shooting

Most Americans, 57 percent, believe the tragic shooting in Arizona isn't connected to politics. That's the result of a new CBS News poll which found only 32 percent of respondents aid the harsh political tone had something to do with the shooting.

The poll of course found a partisan divide:

• Republicans -- 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part.

• Democrats -- 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

• Independents -- 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

The left-wing hate machine's efforts to blame the shooting on the right has failed to persuade Americans, who continue to show they are smarter than many political activists give them credit for being.

Now that it is clear there is no political advantage to be gained in the political blame game, perhaps Barack Obama can apologize for his extreme rhetoric as he picks up the mantle of "consoler in chief."

The extreme rhetoric should stop here

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona there has been a lot of talk about the "tense political climate" and "extreme rhetoric." Sadly, all that talk and the left's determination to blame the right for the evil act committed by an apparently deranged young man has required that we do more than offer prayers condolences to victims and their families. Instead, we have been placed in a position from which we must push back against the left wing talking points that the shooting is the result of the right's rhetoric.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of the left wing media trying to blame the "tense political climate," the "extreme rhetoric" and even this despicable shooting on the right. Nevertheless, there has been some "extreme rhetoric" that a reasonable person might conclude encourages violence. Consider the following examples of extreme rhetoric rounded up by theblogprof:

• "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Barack Obama in July 2008

• "I want you to argue with them and get in their face!" Barack Obama, September 2008

• "Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger."  Barack Obama on banks, March 2009

• "I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!" Barack Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

• "We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick." Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010

• "A Republican majority in Congress would mean 'hand-to-hand combat' on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy." Barack Obama, October 6, 2010

• "We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us." Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010

Please, can someone persuade Barack Obama to tone down his extreme rhetoric before it results in more violence?

Administration prepares to defy efforts to limit Obama’s options for Guantanamo

by Dafna Linzer
ProPublica, Jan. 3, 2011, 1:17 p.m

Update (4:25 p.m.): This story has been updated to reflect our latest reporting with the addition of a third sentence in the second paragraph.

Obama administration officials say they plan to reject Congressional efforts to limit the president's options on Guantanamo, setting the stage for a confrontation between the president and the new Congress on an issue that has been politically divisive since Inauguration Day.

The Guantanamo provisions, which include limits on where and how prisoners can be tried, were attached to a spending bill for military pay and benefits approved by Congress late last year. Some Administration officials are recommending that President Obama sign the spending bill and then issue a “signing statement” challenging at least some of the Guantanamo provisions as intrusions on his constitutional authority. Others have recommended that he express opposition to the Guantanamo sections without addressing their constitutionality.

The statement, officials said, would likely be released along with a new executive order that outlined review procedures for some -- but not all -- of the 174 Guantanamo prisoners still held without charge or trial.

Obama has used signing statements in the past, but this one would carry political significance as the first test of his relationship with a Congress in which the House is firmly in Republican control.

Officials said the White House is still weighing how to calibrate the signing statement. A statement rejecting all of the bill's Guantanamo provisions would almost certainly be viewed as provocative by Congressional Republicans and some Democrats. But administration officials view the provisions as clear encroachments on the president's right to prosecutorial discretion and some are pushing for their blanket repudiation.

The reliance on detention orders and a signing statement -- tools used repeatedly by former President Bush, who built Guantanamo nearly a decade ago -- is seen by Obama's advisers as among the few options left for an administration that has watched the steady erosion of its first White House pledge nearly two years ago: to close the prison.

"There is obviously an irony here," said one Obama administration official, "but if we resort to this, it is to close Guantanamo, not keep it open."

While the signing statement and the executive order would leave some room for Obama, they would do little to bring his policy goals to fruition. Over the last two years, Congress and the administration, working separately and in conflict, have woven together a complicated set of categories, policies and restrictions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to close Guantanamo.

What the White House once saw as bipartisan support for shuttering the prison soon became a bipartisan effort to thwart the administration's plans.

The spending measure effectively bars the president from prosecuting any detainees in federal court or conducting military commission trials on U.S. soil. The bill makes it increasingly difficult to transfer detainees to foreign countries, even if the administration deems them safe to release. And it complicates the review process Obama plans in the executive order for nearly 50 detainees the administration has designated as too dangerous to free.

A small circle of policymakers and lawyers from the White House, the Justice Department and State Department spent the closing hours of 2010 considering drafts for a statement. A number of administration officials who discussed the internal deliberations declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak on this subject.

They said the statement could amount to a presidential intent to disregard some, but not all, of the provisions relating to Guantanamo detainees. Under consideration are claims that the provisions amount to "undue infringement" on the president's authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, or that they are viewed by the White House as an "unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion," on that power.

Several advisers were pushing for a broader statement that would also take issue with provisions related to detainee transfers. Obama has twice issued signing statements claiming that legislative provisions interfered with his constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and could do so again. But there is some concern that the White House is on less firm ground in that area. The bill, while making future transfers difficult, does not ban them outright.

"There is an honest debate right now, centered primarily inside the White House Counsel's office, and among a number of top staff," said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The question is: Can we work with some of this stuff and, if not, how sharply do we make that point."

The president could veto the spending bill. But officials said the White House will not block legislation on military pay and benefits, especially after the military's support for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," legislation in December. Spokesmen at the White House and the National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.

The White House has, until now, balked at confrontation even as it watched its policy options dwindle. Not one administration official who spoke about the internal deliberations could say for sure whether the White House, in moving to protect the right to prosecute detainees in federal court, would in fact use it.

"All presidents want to preserve maneuverability and authority, that is natural," said Elisa Massimino, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights First. "But President Obama has had the authority to move prisoners to the United States, he's done the background work to identify people to bring to justice and he's squandered the opportunities to exercise that authority. It is striking to now see a fiercer desire to preserve authority than to use it," she said.

Collision Course

In a May 2009 speech at the National Archives, Obama laid out a pathway for dealing with the 240 detainees then held at Guantanamo .

A small number would be confined indefinitely without charge or trial, but the great majority would have their status resolved by civilian or military trials or outright release. Two years later, there is no clarity on any of those tracks. No formal charges have been brought against the three dozen men designated for eventual trial. Others long cleared to return home languish in custody in part because of the administration's self-imposed moratorium on transfers to Yemen.

In effect, detainees face indefinite prosecution, and indefinite release -- concepts unknown before Obama's presidency. In the interim, the number of Guantanamo inmates designated for open-ended detention has grown while the number who await trial has declined.

An executive order would deal in part with some of those cases. Currently, the draft order would provide a full review process for the 48 detainees in the indefinite detention category -- suspects the administration will not charge nor free. Those detainees would have access to lawyers and could challenge their detention and some of the evidence against them. The order also envisions a review of potential prosecution cases to determine which are still viable and in what setting. But the detainees in that category and those in all other categories have no way to challenge those determinations.

"If the executive order only applies to the 48 detainees that the administration says they are detaining indefinitely, then that is a failure to acknowledge reality," said Laura Pitter, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch. "There are 174 detainees still at Guantanamo and whether the administration says they will be tried, detained or released, they are in fact indefinitely detained and have been for a long time." Human Rights Watch, along with other civil rights groups, opposes indefinite detention. "The administration needs to either prosecute them or release them," Pitter said.

The bill makes both of those options more difficult and complicates the aims of the executive order.

Under the terms of the order, an administrative board would meet periodically to evaluate detainees case by case. The board could, in theory, approve the release of a detainee at any time. But language in the defense spending bill allows for the direct release of a detainee only through a court order. For all other releases, the administration would need to seek waivers and in some cases, additional certifications, the terms of which would not likely be achievable.

As a result, the executive order review would be rendered meaningless for nearly all but a small handful of the detainees. Some officials said there have been ongoing efforts to redraft elements of the order, alongside the signing statement, to create a process consistent with the spending bill provisions. But it has been a difficult task.

The bill is most at odds with the administration's longstanding intent to prosecute detainees accused of committing crimes. Its provisions prevent any detainees from being transferred to the United States for any reason, language that effectively kills plans for trials on U.S. soil.

It is this provision that first raised the ire of the administration. In a sharply worded letter to Congressional leaders before the bill was passed, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that limiting the Justice Department's options for federal court prosecutions was "an extreme and risky encroachment on the authority of the Executive branch to determine when and where to prosecute terrorist suspects." Holder specifically noted the president's authority to exercise "prosecutorial discretion."

If the bill were signed without challenge, the remaining prosecutorial option left for the administration would be to charge detainees in military commissions at Guantanamo, with those convicted serving time at the facility. So far, the administration has been unwilling to bring new charges in that setting.

"The bill," said one administration official, "undermines the principles outlined in the president's archives speech and there is no way to pretend you are closing Guantanamo if that law goes through unchallenged."

The bill is also likely to unravel the only working leg of the administration's Guantanamo effort: transfers of some detainees home or to third countries. Mostly with the help of European allies, the State Department has transferred or resettled 66 detainees, roughly one-quarter of the detention facility's population when Obama came into office. That program is still completing transfers or returns for another 30, non-Yemeni detainees.

While the bill does not prevent future transfers outright, it determines that the secretary of defense, and to some extent, the secretary of state, must ensure that any released individual cannot engage in activity harmful to the United States. Administration officials said the wording makes it all but impossible to carry out additional transfers.

A recent U.S. intelligence assessment said that five detainees released during Obama's presidency have engaged in or are suspected of engaging in terrorist or insurgent activity. During the Bush administration, more than 500 prisoners were released and the recent report by the Director of National Intelligence said as many as 150 of those former detainees have engaged in or are suspected of participating in efforts to harm the United States.

Obama has issued a number of signing statements taking issue with more than a dozen legislative provisions and has come under some criticism for it from both Republicans and Democrats. Shortly after he took office, Obama promised to use them with less frequency than former President Bush, noting in a presidential memorandum in March 2009: "I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded."

Bush established Guantanamo through executive order and issued over 150 signing statements, more than any other president. The practice was especially controversial when Bush applied it to legislation dealing with detainee treatment.

The American Bar Association issued a report in 2006 that called signing statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." The report was signed by a number of legal scholars including Harold Koh, who was then dean at Yale Law School and is today the top lawyer at the State Department and one of several advisers involved in the administration's Guantanamo policy.