The first 100 days of the Obama Presidency

While it’s my belief that “the first 100 days” is a quite artificial benchmark that’s been exhaustively overstated, especially these last few weeks, and while I also know this post technically comes on the 101st day, I thought I might join the crowd and give a few of my own thoughts on the first 100 days of the Obama Presidency.

President Obama obviously deserves credit for not blowing up the country. I say this only half-tongue-in-cheek, as no matter what your politics, running a byzantine administration without having it all fall apart in tatters is no small feat. And I give kudos to the President for allowing the Navy and its SEALs to do what they do best during the Maersk Alabama crisis.

That being said, there has been little hope to inspire me with much confidence during Act One, Scene One of the Obama Presidency. The Cabinet selections have already become a punchline, and several departments have yet to be staffed. The key piece of legislation during this period, the economic stimulus package, while blessed by Obama, wasn’t penned by him. But by far the main concern is the unsustainable growth in government, evidenced by the recklessly irresponsible spending in both the unneeded stimulus package and the bloated deficit-ridden 2010 budget.

The fact is that we as a nation simply don’t have the kind of money Obama wants to throw around, and we can’t get it without borrowing it or printing it or drastically raising taxes, all three of which are distastefully unnecessary solutions to a problem of Obama’s making. And after seeing the Congressional Budget Office’s dismal projections of future debt, I’m not hearing any arguments to the contrary other than, “Eh, it won’t be that bad.” Coupled with Obama’s laughable promises of fiscal responsibility and opposition to earmarks, promises which have already been swept under the rug, we are beginning to see a governing philosophy that government is the cure for all of society’s problems, a view which I fundamentally reject.

On the world stage, I am likewise troubled by Obama’s call for unilateral nuclear disarmament, a statement made at virtually the same time North Korea test-launched a missile over Japan. Iran continues to press forward with its nuclear program, growing ever closer to its goal of nuclear weapons, and Obama continues to seemingly do nothing but call for more dialogue while alienating Israel. The G20 summit accomplished very little, and after Obama received none of his requests, it seems to me that the world community may like Obama, but don’t necessarily respect him – a key difference.

The protocol gaffes, such as the beastly gifts to Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth, and the bow to the Saudi king, I am willing to chalk up to inexperience (though the ridiculous denial of the bow in the face of video and pictures demonstrates an almost pig-headed arrogance). But the passivity in the face of an anti-American tirade by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and the almost chummy outreach to Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, illustrate a naivete and a man with his international priorities upside down. Together with the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the release of CIA interrogation techniques, it all mixes to fail to make our nation fundamentally safer.

But more than anything else, I am troubled and disappointed to see that Obama has already, it seems, turned off any hope of dialogue with Republicans and conservatives. I can think of no time in the last few months when Obama genuinely reached out across the aisle, or at least tried to cause the least damage. Instead, the “I won” mentality has taken root, as Republicans were basically shut out of the stimulus and budget drafting processes, and the President and his supporters dismiss any reasoned criticism and valid concerns as partisan harping by rednecks and Fox News. I would warn the President that he further alienates the 48% of Americans who did not vote for him (along with some independents and others who did) to his own political peril.

The President celebrated his first 100 days with a press conference that felt more like a cocktail party with all the softball questions you might expect. All of the superlatives being tossed around – the most accomplished 100 days ever, the new JFK, the new FDR, etc. – are all largely juvenile attempts at hopelessly misguided self-reassurance that the President’s supporters picked a superhuman savior to rescue us from ourselves. Karl at Patterico’s site dissects and repudiates a lot of the spin and reminds us that day 101 is the beginning of the rest of the story. As the next chapters unfold and write themselves, we can only voice our own opinions and do our own work to make America better. Sometimes we’ll do that with the President, and sometimes in spite of the actions he takes. Either way, it’s only the end of the beginning, and we’ve got a while left on this ride.

A final betrayal as Arlen Specter switches parties

With polls showing a crushing primary defeat at the hands of challenger Pat Toomey, Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania, today announced he would switch parties and run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat. Specter whined that the Republican party had become too conservative for him and he now found his “political philosophy” more in line with the Democrats.

Be assured of this – his “political philosophy” had nothing to do with the switch. It is a pure act of political survivalism, in effect selling one’s soul to achieve a momentary political benefit. As Ed Morrissey notes, if Specter complains that the Republican tent wasn’t big enough for him, it’s merely because there’s no space for someone interested in representing no principle except themselves.

It’s almost laughable that little more than a month ago, Sen. Specter was bashing Obama’s spending and assuring everyone he wouldn’t switch parties, even going so far as to call each of the 41 Republican Senators a national asset against one-party rule. Those words ring ever so hollow now, and I wonder if Democrats, as pleased as they must be to be one Senator closer to a filibuster-proof majority, shouldn’t be more than a little wary of a man so willing to distastefully change his stripes at the slightest change in the political winds.

To be sure, Specter has angered many over the years with a backward view of supposed bipartisanship that in the end just seemed to screw over Republican and conservative interests, but the final straw was his vote, one of the Republican three out of all of Congress, for the behemoth stimulus package whose massive and irresponsible spending has yet to provide a jolt to the economy. Many are glad to see him go, and there’s increasing speculation that other Senators, such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and even Lindsey Graham, might follow suit. RNC chair Michael Steele, for his part, blasted Specter as “flipping the bird” to the many Republicans who supported him against strong criticism and now looked forward to defeating him. As an aside, it seems Sen. Specter didn’t even have the class to inform the RNC of his decision.

Take whatever extrapolation of the state of the Republicans and Democrats you want to make out of the equation – this move boils down to one man’s desire to hold onto political power. When his internal polling showed he couldn’t do that as a Republican, Specter made the “painful” decision to switch his political allegiance to set up a seemingly assured general election victory. In the process he completed the final destruction of any illusions one might ever have of the existence of any core set of beliefs in Senator Specter’s political philosophy save one – first, win. Enjoy your new caucus member, Democrats, and hope he treats you better than he treated his friends and supporters.

Let’s not go overboard on swine flu

I know there’s a lot of dire coverage right now regarding the outbreak of swine flu both here in America and in Mexico, the latter of which has caused 100 deaths and prompted the near-shutdown of Mexico City. And though a level of caution is always warranted, let’s take a few deep breaths.

First, it’s helpful to realize that the cases in the US appear to be much milder than those of Mexico, and that all of the cases seem to be able to be linked directly back to Mexico, making it more likely to be contained within our own country. And while we should be on the lookout for possible contagion, the same advice always applies and appears to be the best in this case – wash your hands, cover your mouth when you sneeze, and practice good general hygiene.

I’m always a bit wary when health officials throw around the word “pandemic” – it’s done far too frequently and does nothing but unnecessarily stoke the fears of a public largely uneducated on the details of microbiology and public health. I’m likewise reminded that the same specious attention-grabbing charge of “possible pandemic” was made about avian flu, about SARS, about West Nile virus … you get the picture.

A lot of this is the fault of the media – I saw a local broadcast practically screaming that they had found coagulase-negative staphylococcus on local produce! What they left out was that coag-negative staph is normal flora of the skin. And there is the hyping of MRSA as a killer superbug when the reality is that it’s isolated quite often in patient specimens, and while noone wants it, it can be treated by several antibiotics. Take me at my word on this one – I work in a microbiology lab by day. (And provide the cutting analysis you all enjoy by night! Just kidding.)

So I would urge you to exercise caution if politicians or health officials try to scare you with the threat of an impending swine flu pandemic. (And likewise be wary if politicians try to use this scare as a political wedge issue.) It’s worth keeping your eyes on, but at this point, I don’t see much of a massive threat to public welfare.

Up to 7 Gitmo detainees may be released in US

An LA Times front page story tells us that the Obama administration is making plans to admit up to seven Chinese Muslims, all part of a Muslim ethnic group called the Uighurs, directly into the United States. I’m going to quote you the same part of the article that Hot Air highlights:

Some former U.S. officials have said government information indicates that the Uighurs may pose a danger if released. But other officials and human rights organizations insist they pose no threat to Americans…

Not long after being granted access to TV, some of the Uighurs were watching a soccer game. When a woman with bare arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the television and threw it to the ground, according to the officials.

It’s important to note that the Uighurs “admitted that their purpose in going to Afghanistan was to receive military training to fight Chinese rule over Xinjiang.” They were captured in Pakistan, and it’s claimed that they don’t view the US as a direct enemy, but still hold very strict cultural views, as evidenced by the TV anecdote.

The reason being given for the release is so that other countries will be more willing to accept Guantanamo detainees. But what’s troubling is that China actually wants these people back (presumably to imprison them), and the Obama administration is acting unlikely to hand them over. Whether they are directly opposed to the United States or not, it seems clear that regardless they are militants that, with or without supervision, should not be living freely among the American populace (suburban Virginia is a possible destination being speculated on).

Administration officials are complaining that political opponents will try to “smear” the Uighurs and unfairly portray the situation of the detainees. Sorry, but concern is only natural. It’s no different than when prisoners from domestic prisons are released into society – people are going to be wary. Downplaying those fears as mere political opposition is disingenuous to say the least, and it might be important to consider that one of the entities concerned is the Department of Homeland Security.

But beyond that, the move, along with the just-announced release of interrogation photos, seems itself an ill-considered move designed to show how much more “enlightened” the current administration is than the past one. The question still remains: if a Chinese Muslim held at Guantanamo Bay with weapons training and wanted by the Chinese government moved next door, would you break out the potato casserole? Or would you keep one eye peeled? I have very deep concerns about this move, and the administration is taking an unnecessary gamble just to look good.

Keep an eye on Pakistan – Taliban 60 miles from capital

There is worrisome news out of Pakistan that Taliban militants, already handed the Swat Valley, are battling in the Buner district and by some reports are 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad.
For an illustration, here is a map from the Daily Mail article:

Patterico is rightly concerned, and Allahpundit says it may be time to start freaking out about Pakistan. At the very least we should keep a close eye on the situation. As everyone knows, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, and if they should fall into Taliban hands it will be an absolute disaster for the region and will immediately pose a threat to American interests here and abroad.

Much was made of Joe Biden’s comment that Obama would be “tested” early in his Presidency. The North Korean missile launch was one of those tests, but this is a far greater challenge, with the consequences of failure much more dramatic. At times like this you have to just hope President Obama takes a strong stand in this crisis, and I pray that he doesn’t have a Carter moment and merely watch unapprovingly as Pakistan and its nuclear weapons fall into unfriendly hands. I have no idea how he will respond, but I hope it’s well. The nuke issue makes this situation of urgent importance, because a nuclear-armed Taliban is too frightening to contemplate.

Wash Post: Pelosi briefed on CIA interrogation in 2002

Things may be getting a bit thornier in the push to prosecute Bush administration officials for interrogation techniques. After denials from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she knew nothing about waterboarding, more attention is being paid to a 2007 Washington Post article indicating she and other Congressional leaders received a briefing in 2002 about potential interrogation techniques. Pelosi’s office is now claiming that the meeting didn’t go into much detail, but the statement is without a doubt backtracking on her previous position that she was oblivious.

It gets even dicier when the ranking Republican member on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, says that many in Congress knew more about the interrogation techniques than they would have you believe. He’s pushing for names and dates to be released with information regarding the Congressional briefings on CIA interrogation.

All of this is a good reason why the show trials of former Bush administration officials shouldn’t even be considered. I think it’s perfectly logical to assume that many members of Congress were fully aware of what the CIA was doing and had no problem with it until it could be used against their political rivals. I am reminded of the many in Congress claiming that President Bush “lied” to them about Iraq when in truth they had much of the same intelligence he did.

If it is proven that high-ranking Democrats knew and approved of the CIA interrogation techniques, it will be a stunning display of hypocrisy for political ends. It’s why President Obama’s first reaction to simply move forward was the correct one, and why his subsequent green-light to open up Pandora’s box is a major fumble.

MIT scientist: Cap-and-trade could cost $3900 per household

How fitting this story should come out on Earth Day(there are no coincidences). A recent MIT study led Republicans over the last few months to claim that the cap-and-trade environmental proposal would cost each American household roughly $3,100. The argument seemed to lose steam when the author of the study, MIT professor John Reilly, claimed the study was being misrepresented and that cap-and-trade would only cost each household $215. The news was rapidly spread across the media, and pundits and Democrat politicians were painting the Republicans as liars for using “fuzzy math” to attack their precious cap-and-trade.

(For those who are unclear on what exactly cap-and-trade means: basically the government sets a limit on emissions for business – the cap. Businesses that have emissions over the limit must buy emissions credits from businesses that don’t pollute as much – the trade.)

The problem is, it seems the professor now admits to making a spreadsheet error that puts the new estimate at about $800/year. That alone is a significant increase, but read what else the article says (heads up from Hot Air) :

While $800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the “cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],” Reilly wrote. “So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.”

In other words, Reilly estimates that “the amount of tax collected” through companies would equal $3,128 per household–and “Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners
in one way or another”–but those costs have “nothing to do with the real cost” to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be “returned” to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, “the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].”

In Reilly’s view, the $3,128 taken through taxes will be “returned” to each household whether or not the government cuts a $3,128 rebate check to each household.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not so certain you can just discount the $3,128 passed on to consumers to cover a tax on business because the tax money will theoretically be returned to the taxpayers in the form of government services. If the last few years are any indication, the money will more likely be spent helping certain demographics and special interests. And on a more fundamental, it ought to be up to the American people how they spend their money, especially in these tight economic times.

The bottom line is, now that the debunking has been debunked, it’s becoming ever more clear that the cap-and-trade proposal is going to be a burden on business and the American taxpayer. When it comes to the environment, I’m a conservationist who believes we ought to be good stewards of this planet. But we cannot sacrifice our economy to assuage the eco-guilt of some, especially as India and China will refuse to follow our lead and further overtake our manufacturing capability.

And in a broader sense, making this proposal flies in the face of claiming to care about the economy and small business. An additional $4,000 burden on a household will be a back-breaker for many, and while it might be a good source of revenue for the government, it will be an albatross around the neck of industry that, frankly, we don’t need right now. Cap-and-trade isn’t the solution to the chimeric issue of global warming (which itself isn’t as cut and dried as it seems), but it will end up being a major economic headache.

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence: “Enhanced interrogation works”

Just a day after the CIA disclosed that intense interrogation techniques performed on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stopped a terror attack in LA and led to the arrest of the terrorist Hambali, the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration further defended their use. Admiral Dennis Blair wrote an internal memo saying techniques such as waterboarding provided “high-value information” that assisted in understanding al-Qaeda operations against this country.

Interestingly, the memo that was originally released to the public by the administration had the words of support redacted. I’m not going to personally read too much into that, as Blair’s office says they were deleted in the normal process of shortening a memo for release, but you would think those words would be fairly significant to keep in.

While it’s true that we have considered waterboarding by other nations as torture, there’s an increasing argument that it works, as Patterico goes into here. As I’ve said before, I don’t want America in the business of cutting off fingers and branding with hot irons, and I don’t want us to get into the business of torture. At the same time, what do you do when you have a known terrorist who won’t answer your questions? At some point, asking nicely will fail to work, especially when you release CIA interrogation policies so your potential enemies will be prepared for what’s coming. At that point, do you just shrug your shoulders and cross your fingers?

I’m not saying it’s an easy choice, nor am I discounting the ethical and moral dilemma involved. At the end of the day, though, it’s about saving lives and busting up terror cells that target civilians for slaughter. And the absolutely wrong thing to do is to prosecute people in a previous administrations that used “aggressive interrogation” in at least a semi-successful manner.

Obama open to Bush admin prosecutions as CIA defends its practices

President Obama today left the door open to prosecution of Bush administration officials for devising interrogation policies that the current administration deems distasteful. The move is something of a flip-flop, as Obama had previously indicated he wouldn’t go after the past administration. The interrogation policies were detailed in memos released last week to some controversy, both in what they contained, outlining waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and the use of insects, and in the fact that they were released at all, providing our enemies with a playbook to CIA interrogation, thus giving them greater information on how to resist.

I don’t want the United States to be in the business of torture, but there is some difference between “torture” and “interrogation.” Yes, I know that the Japanese waterboarded during World War II and we considered it torture back then. Yes, I know that Republican Presidential nominee John McCain came out against the practice. Yes, I know the arguments that torture never works, as the one questioned ends up telling the interrogator what they want to hear.

The thorny point is that the “harsh interrogations” seemed to have worked at least a little bit. The CIA maintains that its interrogations on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others thwarted a 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles and led to the arrest of the terrorist Hambali. In addition, former Vice President Dick Cheney is pushing for the immediate release of more CIA memos that he believes will justify the use of the questionable interrogation practices.

But even beyond the debate about what constitutes torture and what works to safeguard the American public is what appears to me to be a politically motivated judicial attack on a previous administration. I agree with Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey when he says that if Obama truly believes the interrogation tactics were not warranted, he should simply move forward. Prosecuting a former administration (and conveniently overlooking anything any other administrations may have done) will be an unfair and vindictive act of partisanship that will obliterate any chance for Obama of winning over Republicans and conservatives. President Obama is leaving the judicial moves up to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department, but make no mistake, if shameful and partisan show trials commence, it will be another example of an administration not trying to be conciliatory and govern from the center, but imperiously dictating terms to those who didn’t vote for a winner. I don’t know what will ultimately come of this, but I hope that scenario doesn’t come to pass.

Miss USA pageant a sad reminder of PC gone wild

Last night, the Miss USA pageant turned ugly when one of the judges, celebrity fluff-blogger Perez Hilton, asked of Miss California, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

Miss California Carrie Prejean responded, “Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.” (Hot Air has the video.)

Not terribly impressive, but at the same time, not that big of a deal, right? Wrong. The sleazeball Hilton, who apparently got the gig out of some sort of misplaced sympathy,  while thumping his cyber-chest, slammed her answer on his widely read celebrity fluff blog as the “worst answer in pageant history” and said she lost, “not because she opposed gay marriage, but because she’s a stupid bitch!” He later doubled down on his disgusting behavior by retracting an apology and saying he was really wanting to call her the “c-word.”

(A quick refresher to Mr. Hilton: This is probably the worst answer in pageant history. And, in my own opinion, I heard way more cheers than boos for Miss California’s answer.)

A couple things: I could not normally care less about beauty pageants as I consider them vapid excersises in popularity for people who can’t get over high school. And I fully realize that this is just a minor blip in the MTV/VH1/People/Us Weekly parade of celebrity non-issues that are waved in front of our noses at the supermarket and in the breakroom as if they matter in the slightest. That being said, this episode bothers me. The main reason doesn’t have to do with gay marriage, homophobia, or any of the other reasons you might think of. I’m bothered because this has to do with a politically loaded question being asked and when an appropriate answer isn’t given, it’s full-on smear time. And the problem has been multipled one-thousand-fold because the story and its discussion is racing across the Internet, the blogosphere, and cable news, and when Mr. Hilton is being interviewed on Larry King over the episode, you know it’s gotten to ridiculous levels.

Whatever your views on gay marriage, it bothers me that someone can’t express a view that’s not for it in a fairly non-offensive manner without vulgar name-calling and silence from the host. And I submit to you that Miss California’s view isn’t really a fringe opinion, that view of marriage consisting of a man and a woman, but allowing that you can disagree in this great country (and she didn’t “denounce it” or say a “slur” as I’ve seen on high-level news sites). On a wider level, it bothers me that political correctness has taken such a foothold in this country such that any manner of disagreement on social issues draws labels and accusations. Can we have an honest discussion in this country on anything without being called “racist”, “homophobic”, “bigoted”, and so on? In the world of the mainstream media and pop culture, I’m beginning to think not. A narrative has been established, and if you hold an opinion on one issue, guess what? You neatly fall into a category that we’ve set for you.

The saddest part is that Mr. Hilton will undoubtedly get his wish of further traffic to his overrated blog to massage his ego (indicating underlying psychological problems I won’t delve into), and Ms. Prejean will still be the nationally smeared loser. It’s something that we ought consider when someone dares to question what is politically correct. The left spent the last eight years reminding us, sometimes quite rightly, that dissent should not be feared or ostracized. How quickly that lesson is forgotten.

Obama’s “belt-tightening” just useless spin

President Barack Obama, in a bid to appear more fiscally responsible, today told his Cabinet to look into finding ways to save $100 million. The article is a wire news report that is harshly scathing in its analysis, indicating Patterico is right when he says the media honeymoon may be ending fast. Here’s the problem – while it’s nice to talk about any kind of cutback in federal spending, $100 million is literally just a drop in the bucket. Hot Air notes the figure is only 0.0029% of the 2010 budget, which Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tries to ridiculously describe as “big money.”  (And after, the article notes, Gibbs laughed off $8 billion in earmarks as “miniscule”)

And what makes the “responsible” pledge even more laughable is that on the same day, President Obama proposed a $100 billion loan for the IMF. So much for all those potential savings, eh, Mr. President?

After the mammoth stimulus and omnibus spending bills, coupled with a bloated budget with the biggest deficit in history, the President knows he must appear fiscally responsible. This is especially true in light of the widespread and successful Tea Parties last week held against out-of-control government spending, which despite derision by cable news anchors and the liberal elite, are still viewed favorably by 51% of the population, along with another recent poll that says 52% of us fear the government will do too much. So the order to the Cabinet is a purely political gambit designed to let the administration off the hook by saying, “See? We tried to cut back and tighten our belts!”

But the problem with the “savings proposal” is that it’s so ineffectively microscopic that it only ends up making Obama look unserious about fiscal responsibility (which he is, by the way). Obama had hyped the announcement in his weekend radio address, but this proposal only serves as a reminder of how flagrantly reckless government spending has already been, and how it proves to continue in the future.

Obama administration continues to alienate Israel

Once close allies, after the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, almost overnight the relations between Israel and America have taken a chilly turn for the worse. The Age, an Australian newspaper, goes into further detail, calling conversations between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “taking on all the trappings of a duel.”

Israelis are being alienated by what they see as the Obama administration dictating to them what a final peace with Palestine will look like. Now, according to the article, no less than Rahm Emanuel is using Israeli fears of Iranian nukes to urge Israel to give up the West Bank. Mr. Emanuel is reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington that if Israel wants American help in defusing tensions with Iran, Israel had better be prepared to evacuate settlements in the West Bank.

It’s been an open question since the inauguration whether the Obama administration would support Israel if it decided to take a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. From what I’ve seen so far, I would have to think “no.” If reports are true, then it’s shameful to use the very real of threat of a nuclear Iran to coerce Israel to give up territory. Why the administration is rushing to push away a staunch American ally and a vital democracy in the region escapes me. At the same time, the recent decision to drop opposition to the terrorist organization Hamas being a part of a future Palestinian Authority government troubles me deeply

One thing you can be sure of – it’s no coincidence that a recent meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was cancelled, and that the White House announced it will not continue the tradition of hosting Israeli Prime Ministers whenever they visit, sometimes on very short notice. The chilling of relations between America and Israel at the same time Obama is performing lazy protocol gaffes in Britain and alienating French President Nicholas Sarkozy, all the while making overtures to Cuba and chumming it up with Hugo Chavez – none of this infuses me with great confidence in a foreign policy that seems to be built more on persuasive star power with a set of priorities all out of whack.

Tea Party Aftermath

One day after the historic and widespread Tea Parties across this nation, a lot of folks are struggling to understand what happened and where we go from here. By some estimates, close to 250,000 people in 800 cities took part in the peaceful rallies in support of personal and fiscal responsibility and against the expansion of government power. (A running tally at RedState has a total of 309,000 and counting.)

The left sneered at such protests, saying they were tiny gatherings of old white right-wingers upset that a black man was President. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s hard to get that truth, though, when much of the national media ignored the event, and when they did spend time on it, made much use of lame and vulgar “teabagging” sexual humor or allowed their correspondents to berate rally-goers as “anti-CNN.” (Judging by ratings, it seems most of America is anti-CNN.) Meanwhile, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky derided the rallies as “despicable” and “shameful”, clearly missing the point of the events.

It’s too bad, because a lot of people outside the hallowed halls of intellectual power got it. It’s the reason Fox’s ratings skyrocketed over the Tea Party coverage as the only network to take the rallies seriously (although, contrary to urban legend, they were not responsible for sponsoring them).

To me, the rallies demonstrate a deep-seated unease among a significant portion of the American populace with the ever-growing size, cost, and power of government. The anger, at least at the Dayton rally, was truly directed at both parties – spending and the debt was bad under Bush, but just increased at a slower pace until the TARP boondoggle.

What the rallies accomplished is impossible to determine in the short term. Those determined to ignore their message and label them as fringe rallies won’t ever be convinced no matter if 2,500, 25,000, or 25 million attended. And, though I hope it isn’t the case, it could be that all the emotion was spent yesterday and nothing comes of it.

But what I do think is some kind of movement has indeed begun. Everyone stressed yesterday to extend the activism beyond April 15th and carry it forward to spread facts and the truth about taxes, the economy, the government, and our own personal responsibility. But in another sense, I think it was important for some on the right to come together after taking so much abuse as a group, being labelled “losers” and accused of having dwindling influence as a consequence of the last two election cycles. It’s why it’s heartening to see that so many others believe likewise in acting positively to enact a smaller and more responsible government, believing all the while in the resourcefulness of the American people and the greatness of the United States. I would urge those still skeptical of the effectiveness of the Tea Parties to consider that they are only a plot on a line that stretches from now into the future, and how we act from here will ultimately determine what they meant in the grand scheme of American history.

The Tea Party in Dayton, like others, a success

Not too long ago I returned from the Tea Party held in Dayton, OH. An estimated crowd of 7,000 to 8,000 gathered in Courthouse Square downtown to listen to several speakers talk about the state of our nation and express their frustration at our economic predicament and their belief that the people of this country can turn it around.

Here are some pictures of the crowd:

As you can see, the turnout was pretty good for a middle-sized Midwestern city. I can’t stress enough how diverse the crowd was – people from all age groups and all walks of life were there to show their opposition to reckless government spending. These were your normal average Americans, not crazy deranged wackos as some might have you believe (The Anchoress scoffs at the smear labelling). The event was very nonpartisan, in so much as both parties shared blame for the failures and excesses of government. I saw a lot of good signs, and here are a few:

The folks at the rally weren’t rude or obnoxious, and everyone was fairly civil. There were only a few scattered counter-protestors, and this photo is great, once you understand what was going on:

Apparently, the sign in the middle that you can’t really see is something along the lines of “Protect Your Own Package, Don’t Listen to Teabaggers.” What’s funny is that several other ralliers quickly surrounded and raised their own signs to block the vulgar sign.

The speakers were pretty good, highlighting our own community here in Dayton by drawing on the inventiveness of the Wright brothers and our resolve in the face of the Great Dayton Flood of 1913. Particularly intriguing was Harald Zeiger, a small business owner and immigrant  from East Germany with a personal perspective on the ravages of socialism and an overbearing government.

 Above all, the message was one of frustration at seemingly out-of-control government spending and expansion of federal power, and one of support for the American workers and families that are the true source of greatness in this nation.

Across the country, the Tea Party movement seems to have been a success. Michelle Malkin has some photos from various cities and an open threadabout the Tea Parties. HotAir talks about the rallies as writing on the wall, Jack Dunphy relates the Santa Monica Tea Party, Karl at Patterico reminds us that the lack of coverage indicates the continuing peasant mentality among the intellectual elite, and Patterico himself reminds us that the spirit that spawned the Tea Parties must continue beyond today if it is to have any lasting impact.

I come away inspired and energized that there quite a number of people in my own town and spanning this great country that still give a damn about responsibility and ensuring future generations will enjoy the same prosperity and freedom that we have experienced here for the last 200 years. Safeguarding the future is hard work, but it is necessary, and judging from the turnout today, the sleeping giant of responsible America has been awoken.

Homeland Security publishes broad report on “right-wing extremism”

A report from the Department of Homeland Security is causing a stir today by warning of risks associated with “right-wing extremism.” Such behavior, the report outlines, is driven by the recession, illegal immigration and the election of a black president, and warns against a few disgruntled veterans returning home from war swelling the ranks of hate groups. It goes on to define such right-wing extremist groups as not only white supremacist groups and anti-government militias, but also any group or entity that rejects federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It’s a broad and sweeping definition that seems to cast doubt on anyone seeking to curb the power of federal government.

Not surprisingly, conservatives are in an uproar over the report. Michelle Malkin is calling the report a “hit job on conservatives”, Ed Morrisey describes the document as an “execrable … war on federalism” that has no actual data to back up its conclusions, the Anchoress questions whether Homeland Security is picking a fight, and RedState slams it as a blatant propaganda effort to lump conservatives together with wackos. It’s all just the tip of the iceberg.

Homeland Security has issued other reports in the past about left-wing cyberattacks and environmental terrorism, but in those instances the reports were specifically focused on those named groups which might pose a threat. While it’s important to keep an eye on any potential threat, this report seems to broadly and needlessly lump in those that believe in federalism and separation of powers with anti-Semitic hate groups and wacked-out militiamen.

And it’s important to remember that this report wasn’t issued in a vacuum. At the same time this report was written and compiled, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and on a broader scale the entire Obama administration, have replaced the “War on Terror” with the ridiculously euphemistic “overseas contingency operations” and acts of terrorism with “man-caused disasters.” The new Orwellian terms seem to indicate a level of detachment from reality which is only reinforced by the misguided and broad-sweeping indictment of anyone who seems to think the federal government is capable of overstepping its bounds.

The head of the American Legion has expressed severe disappointment with the report, a disappointment which I share. Even it wasn’t meant to, the report will give ammunition to those eager to unfairly paint all conservatives with the broad brush of Timothy McVeigh and abortion clinic bombers. Apparently, you can’t just agree to disagree anymore.