Franken wins, Coleman concedes, and Dems get supermajority

The long ordeal of Minnesota’s Senate race came to a close today when the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Republican Norm Coleman’s legal challenges, ending the state legal battle. Rather than bringing the fight to federal court, Coleman conceded, and with the end of litigation, Democrat Al Franken, former comedian, talk show host and SNL writer, became a US Senator. The victory takes on more national significance because, after Arlen Specter’s defection from the GOP, it hands the Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.

The Democrats, other than the numerical advantage he gives them, shouldn’t be too prideful of his victory. Franken has tried to stay low-key and cordial, no doubt at the urgent advice of his handlers and the DNC. Unfortunately, I have little doubt that eventually, the momentary calmness will be replaced by a flare-up of Franken’s temper punctuated with ill-advised attempts at humor on the Senate floor. For a man whose previous qualifying experience was hosting a failed liberal talk show and writing lame jokes on Saturday Night Live, he has little else to fall back on. I hope Franken proves me wrong and turns out to be a judicious legislator, but nothing in his background, his statements, his jokes, or his shtick leads me to any conclusion other than that he’ll wind up as a national embarassment. Mark my words, Franken’s going to have either an cringe-inducing blow-up or deliver repeated injections of lame comedy during Senate arguments. Either way, 42% of Minnesotans voted for him, which in this case was enough to propel him to the national stage.

 But more important than Franken’s personality is the unmitigated power of the Democrats to ram through whatever legislative item they see fit. At no time when the Republicans were in control of the House or the Senate did they have such an advantage, and as the Democrats have yet to even consult with their opponents on major and historic pieces of legislation, I have no doubt the rampant partisanship will only increase given that any liberal agenda piece is now virtually guaranteed passage and signage into law.

Some might get warm feelings over an unobstructed Democrat agenda, but remember this: the Democrats have no excuses, no scapegoats to fall back on when their policies inevitably fail. With no consultation and limited courtship of Republicans, their measures have passed with basically non-existant GOP support. It’s all on them, and, from my point of view, their measures thus far have not come from a desire to govern from the center and spur economic growth, but merely to fulfill liberal agenda wish list items and reward long-time allies. Again, some may be excited about that, but when the results of out-of-control spending (stimulus) and harmful economic policies (cap-and-trade) come home to roost, voters will rapidly come to the conclusion that they’ve given the Democrats too much power.

Sadly, by that time the damage will already have been done, as legislation, bureaucracy, and entitlement is far easier to create than to destroy. Congratulations on your supermajority, Dems. I’d urge you to use it responsibly, but I fear I’d just be wasting my time.

Obama taking wrong stance on Honduras

Honduras President Zelaya with his pal Chavez.

President Obama, at first “deeply concerned” about the ouster of Honduras President Manuel Zelaya, has now said the “coup was not legal” and sets a terrible precedent of transition by military force. Despite Obama’s comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration hadn’t formally designated the ouster as a coup, which would trigger a cut-off of American aid to the Central American nation.

I agree with the President up to a point – transition by military force is a bad precedent to set, as the rule of law must stand in democratic nations. However, I see missing from any analysis a few simple facts: the actions of the military were authorized by the Supreme Court of Honduras, and power was promptly returned to civilian hands once Zelaya was out of the country. In addition, Zelaya was attempting to go forward with an explicitly illegal referendum that would have allowed him to run for longer than the Honduras Constitution allows (which is to say, not at all). The actions yesterday might be better termed, as Ed Morrisey calls it, “military impeachment.” The rule of law, it might be argued, was actually carried out in Honduras, albeit by a method we wouldn’t like to see become standard.

Simply reinstalling Zelaya would be a grave mistake, as Zelaya’s actions were opposed by the judiciary, the legislature, the military, and a majority of Zelaya’s own party. What seems sensible would be to return Zelaya to Honduras to stand trial or whatever impeachment proceedings would be necessary to “legitimize” the removal of the President who seems to have broken Honduran law. And elections are still scheduled to happen in November, making this a temporary situation that could go away if it doesn’t boil over.

There’s a curious nature to the full-throated denunciation of Zelaya’s ouster by Obama when coupled with his timid response to the Iranian democracy protests. While I appreciate on one level that “meddling” in Iran could be seen as destructive American interference, supportive words cost nothing, and the CIA is being blamed in Iran and Honduras regardless anyway. It’s why the “meddling” in this case doesn’t jive with the previous position, and it doesn’t jive with Latin American countries looking askance at the Monroe Doctrine and American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. And the media has been awfully quick to name this straight-up a “coup” with all the accompanying violent connotations (absent in this case), without substantial mention of the mitigating circumstances that say that Zelaya might not have been such a great guy for Honduras after all. The potential reason might be to give a situation for Obama to look tough on foreign matters after bungling his response to Iran, but that’s just speculation on my part.

I’d urge the President to dial back on the illegality rhetoric (which, again, doesn’t seem to be such a big deal for Iran) and focus merely on the bad precedent for military action. He need not put himself squarely in the corner of a leftist President clearly interested in aggregating more power for himself – unfortunately, that’s exactly what he seems to be doing as the goal seems to be to get Zelaya back in charge. It’s a stance that puts him in agreement with Hugo Chavez, who has threatened military action, and it’s a side Obama frankly shouldn’t be on, especially in this case when the waters are murkier than most people think.

SCOTUS rules in favor of Ricci and New Haven firefighters

In the last day of its current session, and the last day of Justice David Souter, the Supreme Court today handed down a 5-4 ruling that stated that Frank Ricci and several other firefighters from New Haven, CT, were discriminated against when the city threw out the results of their promotion exam when very few minorities passed. The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, had been dismissed twice, the last time by a three-judge Court of Appeals that included current Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

I think this decision was by far the correct one. Even the dissenting opinion, voiced by Justice Ginsburg, had sympathy for the seeming unfairness inflicted on the firefighters. The decision reaffirms merit-based promotion, not those based on racial quotas out of fear of being labelled racist. In a larger sense, it calls into question the efficacy of affirmative action in that it highlights the injustice when society sees hiring, firing, advancement, and any other kind of compensation through racially tinted glasses, no matter which race is the beneficiary or the downtrodden.

I don’t like to view people as members of identity groups or blocs; rather, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. admonished, we ought to judge each individual not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. If an exam is fair, which this one appears to be, then it’s not discrimination if a certain level of minorities don’t pass it. Indeed, throwing out the test, just like affirmative action as a whole, is a cheap shortcut, a way of overlooking the underlying socioeconomic and educational reasons why minorities have societal difficulties. The goal of affirmative action should be to eventually end, but you don’t hear that from its most impassioned advocates. In effect, it’s like saying, “We don’t want to deal with teaching you how to succeed – here’s a perk for you.” And in that way affirmative action doesn’t help minorities at all, because it enforces the belief that minorities are intrinsically unable to make it without it. I refuse to accept that, as I believe each of us has it within us to fail or succeed on our own merits and failings.

What does this do to Sotomayor’s nomination? It might make her confirmation hearing a bit hairier, but I believe she’ll still be confirmed regardless. I’m still deeply uncomfortable with her apparent way of thinking that sees the world, including law, through gender and ethnic eyes. The law is the law, and “empathy” and identity games ought not play a role in supposedly blind justice.

Honduras’ army ousts President over disputed referendum

Ousted Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

Trouble is brewing in the Central American nation of Honduras as it now appears that the Honduran army has arrested President Manuel Zelaya and kicked him out of the country. Zelaya has called it a coup and has urged other governments to not recognize any other government but his. Many have taken his advice, with the OAS and EU condemning the expulsion, along with Zelaya’s ally Hugo Chavez, who by the way blamed “the Yankee empire” for the coup attempt. OK, Hugo, whatever you say. President Obama, in what seems to be becoming a boilerplate response to any international crisis these days, is “deeply concerned” about the matter.

For all the talk about non-democratic principles coming out of Zelaya, however, it seems he’s guilty of a few himself. He’s limited to one four-year term, but he was pressing ahead with a referendum aimed at paving the way for letting him run again, a move that was deemed illegal by Honduras Supreme Court and opposed by its legislative body, the military, and most of Zelaya’s own party. Zelaya also fired military head Gen. Romeo Vasquez after the general refused to go along with organizing the referendum, and Zelaya has since defied a court order to reinstate Vasquez.

That doesn’t make the forcible removal of your President morally right, though, and law-abiding countries have to go through democratic channels for changes in government (although it seems President Zelaya already broke the law in pushing for this referendum). In any case, it’s all too muddy to get a clear bearing on who’s in the right here, but it will be interesting to see if President Obama condemns this uprising with more vigor than his belated “stern talking-to” regarding Iran’s quashing of democracy.

It’s worth keeping an eye on, particularly to see the continued response of Hugo Chavez. While a long shot, it might not be completely out of the realm of possibility to see Venezuela go into Honduras and reinstall Zelaya, a leftist ally of the Venezuelan President. I don’t think that’s a likely scenario at this point, but you never know.

Update: It’s becoming clear that opposition to Zelaya within Honduras was extremely widespread, as you can get a sample of from some of the comments here. What’s also becoming clear is that this isn’t a military coup by any means since the Honduras Supreme Court ordered the military to take action! (Heads up from Hot Air.)

What’s even more interesting is that the Obama administration had a feeling these events would transpire and had been working to keep Zelaya in power. How’s that for not being meddlesome, eh? We can’t support with mere words the democratic protesters in Iran, but we can actively seek to maintain an unpopular President in Honduras? The logic makes no sense whatsoever, and it’s yet another sign of the naivete of the President on foreign policy.

There’s a sense that Zelaya’s closeness with Chavez made it seem like the former Honduras President was a stooge for the Venezuelan one. It also looks like there’s some real fear of Chavez installing another perceived patsy, which the United States should strongly condemn. (How about working against that one, State Department?) In any case, just as in Iran, we need to show solidarity with the Honduran people, not with whatever outside group or domestic oligarchy tries to impose on them. Words alone will suffice, but I have my doubts they’ll be forthcoming.

Update: Things could get ugly in a hurry, as it now appears Hugo Chavez has put his troops on alert and threatened military action if a new government is sworn in. The idle thought I had this afternoon may be closer to reality than I had thought. America can’t simply watch Chavez invade another nation, but I have a bad feeling Central America is going to get very nasty very quickly. Here’s hoping it’s just more Chavez bluster.

Cap and trade passes House with 8 GOP defections

The woefully ill-advised cap and trade bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, narrowly passed in the House of Representatives with a finaly tally of 219-212. The article calls it a “triumph” for the President, but I don’t know how proud the Democrats should feel over such a close vote when 44 of their own voted against it, and in effect they owe passage of the bill to 8 Republican defectors, who, with such a small margin of victory, were clearly the difference.

I also don’t know how proud the Democrats should feel since payoffs were a large part in strong-arming support. Behold one such example from the above article:

Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

Yes, be proud that you essentially had to buy support to even squeak by. But even more egregious was the addition of a 300-page amendment at 3:00 AM this morning, which seriously raises the question of whether most legislators, just like the stimulus package, even knew what they were voting on.

Republican Minority Leader John Boehner have a spirited last-minute speech against the bill and the massive last-minute amendment, speaking for over an hour in what was a filibuster-like performancethat saw him say to bill co-author Rep. Henry Waxman, who whined about the length of Boehner’s diatribe, “You have had 30 years to write this bill, and we have had 5 hours to debate what is the most important bill to come through this House in 100 years.” He’s absolutely right, as from the beginning of this session of Congress, the Democrats have rammed through with little debate and legislative reflection, and certainly little to no compromise, every wish list item on their agenda.

Boehner’s efforts were for naught, however, due to the crossover of 8 GOP members to vote for the bill. If only half of them had changed their mind, this bill would have been defeated. The defections on such a major and historically destructive bill are as shameful as the stimulus defections of Senators Snowe, Collins, and Specter (who ended up completely switching parties anyway). So you may direct your thanks to these eight (info from MM), without whom this bill would have remained dead on the House floor where it belongs:

Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mark Kirk (IL)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
John McHugh (NY)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

The cap and trade idea is an economic disaster, one built on the shaky premise of man-made global warming . Even if one accepts that premise, the bill does little for the entire world output of carbon, as India, China, and Russia, among other countries, will simply say, “Thanks for conceding your manufacturing sector to us, stupid Yanks.” Instead of leading by example, we’ll be laughed at by the world’s biggest polluters for harming ourselves economically. What do we get in return? Higher energy costs, which both sides agree will happen, and a rise in the price of many goods as industries are forced to pay essentially carbon penalties that will be passed on to the consumer. The net result is grave harm to an economy already bleeding from decreased manufacturing jobs, a sector which will take an even harder hit with the new regulations. And a shrinking economy will mean those Obama budget deficits will expand as revenues to the government continue to decrease.

The concept that this bill is a “jobs” bill is an absolute joke. The claim is based on the theory that “green jobs” will be created to fill in the void. No one can really define what these “green jobs” are except grasping at straws to justify nanny-state regulation of industry. Are the green jobs going to workers installing expensive solar panels that many can’t afford without taxpayer-paid subsidies? Are they workers making biodiesel and ethanol, or folks inspecting houses going up for sale for environmental soundness?

Even if there are jobs to be had in these areas, they can’t be many, as the private sector would have been able to turn them into profitable ventures instead of charity cases. And in no way will they replace the blue-collar workers who find themselves out of work because of the domestic decline in manufacturing, and you won’t convince me that many will simply shift over to this supposed new sector of work. Don’t believe me? Just look at Spain, which has aggressive encouragement of green jobs and also boasts one of Europe’s highest unemployment rates.

The one hope cap and trade opponents can have is that the bill is going to run into serious trouble in the Senate. I will never say that bill is doomed to failure, though, as who knows what deals will be cut and what promises will be made. If cap and trade passes the Senate, it will be historic, all right, but not for the reasons its supporters think. It will signal a crippling blow to American industry and a sucker punch to an already hemorrhaging economy, all in the name of Captain Planet do-gooder-ness that will not solve the problem of climate change in the slightest.

Cap and trade, with public option health care, will harm our economy

In line with the continuing mad dash to enact every piece of a strongly liberal agenda before the public begins to sour, a key vote on the environmental cap and trade bill looms for tomorrow. There are conflicting reports about the status of the House vote on Friday (that of course Al Gore is involved in), as some report the bill will pass a close vote, while others say Democrats are concerned about having enough “yeas” to move to the Senate, where the real debate will hopefully be held.

At the same time, the President and ABC hosted a poorly rated town-hall “dialogue” on Obama’s plans to radically reform health care. “Dialogue” is in quotes because the President, taped segments, and ABC anchors took up 88% of the special’s time, and Republicans weren’t offered any meaningful chance at rebuttal or alternatives.

In short, these are two ill-advised proposals that will fundamentally harm the American economy and hamper any further efforts to get us out of the economic straits we find ourselves in.

Take cap and trade. It’s being lauded as a responsible measure to combat global warming (the science for which is highly debatable, but that’s another discussion) in which industry buys emission credits, and high polluters must trade them with lower polluting companies or face steep penalties. Supporters might feel warm and fuzzy knowing the CBO estimated cap and trade will only cost families $175 a year by 2020, but that’s because, among other reasons, by the CBO’s own admission, they didn’t examine at all the impact on the nation’s total economic output from the policy. The Heritage Foundation, in contrast, found these estimates:

Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

If you don’t trust the Heritage Foundation, consider that an MIT scientist offered an estimate of $3,900 a year that he whittles down to $800 a year through some fuzzy logic that claims that the costs to consumers will be somehow returned to them by government and hence don’t need to be considered part of the calculation. The reality is that cap and trade will be a burdensome tax on manufacturing and industry at precisely the wrong time to impose it. It will result in higher costs for consumers, as high costs for businesses will be passed on to customers, and it will lead to the further destruction of an already decimated domestic manufacturing industry, a prime reason the Rust Belt is bleeding and blue collar workers are finding themselves increasingly in financial peril.

And take health care reform, the key component of which is the so-called “public option” to supposedly keep the insurance companies “honest.” To start with, to frame the debate against the evil and dishonest private insurers is as shameful an example of demagoguery as I have ever seen. So does government need to get into the cell phone business to keep cell phone companies honest? Does the government need to sell used cars to keep used car salesmen honest? It’s a ridiculous line of reasoning, but it amazingly seems to be the main thrust of argument for a public plan.

The CBO looked into the cost for this as well, and estimated the cost to be around $2 trillion over 10 years ($4 trillion from some sources), a nearly unsustainable figure and one that sent Democrats scrambling back to the drawing board for a public plan that will cause less sticker shock. But beyond the cost is the result of having a public plan, which for some supporters may be intentional – it will drive out private insurers so that pretty much everyone will go to the government option. Here’s how: if employers have a choice between offering the taxpayer-funded public plan and offering private insurance but paying a tax to the government for not opting into the public plan, which do you think they would choose? The obvious answer is the former, as the plan is designed to make it painful enough for employers that they’ll choose to enter the public plan, whether their employees want to or not. There is a difference between this scenario and a company choosing one private insurer over another as companies will penalized for choosing any private insurer. This is the only way public plan designers can give the government system enough of an edge to be successful, but it’s not designed to do any favors to the private sector.

This doesn’t even touch on the quality of care issue, which Medicare and the VA system sadly illustrate well. Health care is no doubt in need of repair, but the fact is that replacing a private bureaucracy with a taxpayer-funded government one isn’t going to solve these problems, and in the end will prove more costly and decrease the choices available in this country.

So as these two issues become ever more relevant over the next few weeks, keep these points in mind, and remember that it wasn’t government goodwill that brought America to greatness, it was the hard work and ingenuity of its private citizens. But government spending, however well-intentioned, has a good chance of deeply harming that which has made us great – a capitalist, free-market society.

Michael Jackson has died

Just a short time ago, the LA Times and the Associated Press reported that, after being rushing by paramedics to the UCLA Medical Center in cardiac arrest, Michael Jackson has died. It’s a sad end to the strange story of the man dubbed the “King of Pop” and thought by many to be the most famous man in the world. It’s a little more sad when you consider Jackson’s upcoming concert tour, which Jackson was reportedly looking forward to with great excitement as a reboot of his long-dormant music career.

Michael Jackson, in many ways, embodied in full America’s, indeed the world’s, obsession with celebrity. His stratospheric popularity and adoration were overshadowed later in his career with allegations of child abuse and episodes of bizarre behavior, which the press, both tabloid and mainstream, voraciously devoured and regurgitated to a world that at times could not tear itself away from the spectacle.

Despite the child abuse allegations, the ever-changing visage, the millions of jokes, and his general creepiness over the last few years, one thing cannot be denied and should not be forgotten – Michael Jackson was an immensely talented musician and performing artist. He led the Jackson 5 even as a boy, and his music in the 80’s and early 90’s reshaped the pop music landscape forever. Thriller will undoubtedly remain one of the most popular and most well-received albums ever. Musicians and industry insiders recognize his importance to American music. This odd dichotomy between disgust for the man and respect for the entertainer led to a disjointed ambivalence with which many came to regard Jackson.

As a child that grew up in the 80’s, Michael Jackson has for the duration of my cognizant existence been in the cultural discussion. In a funny way, although I’m not a huge fan of his, his passing means the end of a sort of era for me, and I find myself saddened in a fashion that most celebrities’ deaths don’t evoke in me. Part of the sadness stems from the immense talent that was put to waste the last several years of his life both through his own fault and the fault of others, and the knowledge that Michael Jackson, who in many ways was a decent person, was haunted and ruined by the same fame that caused him to be loved and adored by so many.

As Drudge is reporting, the King is Dead, and no matter what opinion one has of the man as a person, the loss of his musical talent and ability to entertain deserves a moment of reflection. The book has closed on the chapter of Michael Jackson, and I hope his soul finds more peace in the next world than it found here.

Breathtaking volcano eruption pic from space

(Image credit: LiveScience.com)

The above picture was taken from the International Space Station and shows the eruption of Sarychev Peak in the Kuril Island chain near Japan. You can read more about the eruption and an explanation here. Sometimes the sheer raw power of nature simply forces you to pause and take notice when confronted with its scope and terrible beauty.

Gov. Sanford admits international affair after six-day absence

After a week in which no one seemed to know his whereabouts, South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanford gave an emotional press conference today in which he admitted having an affair and spending the last several days in Argentina (Hot Air’s got the video). Questions and speculation had arisen when the Governor had fallen out of contact for six days, and while it initially seemed like a ginned-up non-story about a governor taking an unannounced vacation, Sanford’s true location and the reason for his absence vault the events into shameful tragedy.

Cheating on his wife and fleeing the country make Sanford a disgrace to his office (though Michelle Malkin has another name for him), and I have no doubt that one way or another, he’ll be gone from the Governor’s mansion before his term is up. As the chief executive of a state, you can’t just leave the country whenever you feel like it, no matter what your personal circumstances. My heart goes out to his wife and family, who have to bear the shame of a family disgrace like this being aired in public. There’s no doubt that Gov. Sanford has a long road of potentially hard-won forgiveness ahead of him, if it comes his way at all.

It’s sad to see yet another family catastrophe take place in the public arena, but for those who might descry partisan implications from this bizarre episode, remember that Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, John McCain, and so many others show us that infidelity and marital strife are unfortunately some of the few truly bipartisan areas of overlap. For every one of the cheaters like Mark Sanford, there are still a lot folks in the public arena who, whatever you might think of their politics, do indeed value their spouses and children.

Sanford had been on many people’s short list for Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 – this almost certainly ends that pipe dream as he now becomes someone who had the potential to be a rising conservative star and ends up being a moral and ethical disappointment. Sanford will undoubtedly be the butt of many jokes over the coming weeks (including one from John Kerry that tries to get a jab in at Sarah Palin as well), and he quite frankly deserves everything he has coming to him. The South Carolina governor might have had a bright political future ahead of him, but his own failure of conscience has ruined whatever aspirations he might have had. He’s shown that no one is above the failings and temptations that bedevil the human condition, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t bear blame for acting on them. In any event, I suspect South Carolina will be fine with or without him.

With current passivity, Obama deserves no future credit for Iran

Despite a continued crackdown by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, hopes of an overthrow of the oppressive fundamentalist regime in Iran continue to smolder across that country and here in the West. Although European leaders such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Andrea Merkel have decried the quite obviously rigged election, voiced support for the Iranian people, and condemned the violence and suppression of freedom that has since taken place, President Barack Obama has taken a decidedly different tack.

From the get-go, President Obama has been almost loathe to point out the farcical nature of the unbelievably lopsided Iranian electoral result. In addition, he has been unwilling to voice even moral support for the Iranian protesters being shot and arrested in the streets of Tehran. The rationalizing behind this silence is a supposed long-term strategic view, one that sees the Obama administration unwilling to alienate a potential negotiating partner in the Ahmadinejad regime by offering mere words of support for its opposition. Misplaced guilt over American involvement in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and installing the shah is cited as another reason to shy away from any appearance of “meddling” in Iranian affairs.

No one in their right mind should be urging Obama to send in ground troops to buttress the cause of Mir Hossein Mousavi and those rallying around him. However, talk, as they say, is cheap, and it really takes so little to point out the moral authority of the Iranian people rising up against an autocratic theocracy that has paid only lip service to democratic principles and human rights. Obama a few days ago voiced his concern over the violence and “unjust” actions in Iran, but still stopped just short of any kind of rebuke of the mullahs or explicit support for the Iranian people. No endorsement of Mousavi is required, just a simple statement of solidarity that says, “No matter with what voice they speak, we stand with the people of Iran.”

But the President has made his choice, the path of least resistance, the path that says, “No difference between the two guys. You folks sort it out and we’ll be here to negotiate with you regardless.” It’s hard to fathom since so many in foreign policy over the decades have yearned for the most acceptable method of neutralizing Iran, a popular revolution that overthrows the hardliners. Now that the embers of that revolution finally threaten to ignite, the call is to stand aloof, to defer fanning the flames with even just rhetorical fumes, and to disregard those that might bring about reform in the pursuit of popularity-seeking neutrality.

President Obama has made his choice, and if, God willing, the people of Iran are successful in toppling Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei, and the mullahs, then by that same choice of sideline diplomacy, he will deserve none of the credit. If breath-taking change does come to Iran, the call will instantly go out that it was because of the Hope™ offered by Obama, it was because of his historic speech at Cairo that inspired the hearts of Iranians to shout “Yes We Can!”

This call will be without merit. It takes more than winning an election and giving a speech to bring about change in the hardest of nations. It takes leading by example, and Obama has blown this opportunity to do just that. When faced with the chance to go out on a limb for the cause of self-determination, with nothing more at stake than “just words, just speeches”, the President chose the course of timidly shrugging his shoulders, of effectively voting “present” when an “yea” or “nay” was most badly needed. I have heard the term “calm competence” used as a description of Obama’s position – it should more accurately be described as a paralyzing fear of committing one way or another.

The brave students and youth fighting and dying in the streets of Tehran owe nothing to Obama. And if, by some evil turn, the mullahs succeeed in stamping this nascent movement for freedom and openness, then President Obama will compound his duplicity by sitting down at the same table with a regime that quashes dissent and offers nothing but an iron fist for its people.

President Obama has made his choice, the choice to timidly stand and merely watch, and he will earn its consequences.

Update: This goes beyond timid passivity and enters into the realm of dangerously naive and pathetic pandering. Despite all the crackdown and oppression, the State Department stands by its invitation to Iran for hot dogs on the Fourth of July (Heads up from Hot Air). If that goes forward, it’s an absolute disgrace and a slap in the face to those who have died.

Update: Well, that didn’t take long. The Washington Post cites White House advisors as crediting his Cairo speech with Iran’s uprising. I don’t know how you can objectively make that statement unless you’re a) an unobjective advisor or b) hopelessly enamored with the cult of personality emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Iranian crisis continues

Allahpundit’s been doing a fine job rounding up the latest tidbits on the Iranian crisis. Even though most people probably aren’t checking the news on Sunday, the protests are still continuing, and journalists are still being ushered out of the country. Video of a female student being gunned down has gone viral and has further inflamed opinion (Hot Air has her identified as Neda Agha Soltan). From what I can tell, it doesn’t seem to me that we’ve hit the high-water mark for the tensions yet, and I fear the worst is still yet to come.

President Obama finally came out and condemned the violence, but his administration (as well as some opposition Senators) seems to still want to press ahead with negotiations with the Ahmadinejad regime after this all blows over. I’m with Ed Morrissey on this one – going forward with talks with a regime that so clearly thinks nothing of rigging elections and cracking down with oppression and violence will only legitimize that barbarous regime, who will use the dialogue to show their people that, “See, we really are the right guys to lead you.”

And in my opinion, the whole “meddling” thing seems like a kind of weak argument for delaying comment on the unrest in Iran. True, we played a part in installing the shah. True, support that’s too strong could be used as proof that America wants to overthrow another regime. Problem is, the mullahs will probably use that excuse anyway to delegitimize the opposition, and saying nothing at all makes us look weak and uncaring.

One more closing thought: you may see more gushing coverage of Obama’s ice cream trip with his daughters. While it’s a nice image for Father’s Day, it’s also not overly newsworthy, but will be slobbered over regardless. Patterico has an eye-opening contrast between the Twitter feeds of an Iranian student and a CBS news correspondent. It’s a sad commentary on the misplaced priorities of our domestic media and the saccharine love affair they have with all things celebrity, whether those celebrities be politicos or not.

Crackdown in Iran may be coming soon

Allahpundit has rounded up some disturbing news items that seem to point to a clash tomorrow between the Revolutionary Guard and Mousavi supporters. Mousavi has essentially been told to support the regime or get out, and he appears to remain defiant.

As always, remember the Iranian people in your prayers. They wanted a change of direction away from Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, and may get bloodshed in its place.

North Korea may launch missile at Hawaii

Japanese intelligence officials have told the US that North Korea plans to launch a long-range missile towards Hawaii in early July, possibly on July 4th, American Independence Day and also the anniversary of the death of Kim Jong Il’s father. The missile, thought to be the same model of Taepodong-2 that North Korea test fired earlier this year, has a 4,000-mile range, putting the Hawaiian Islands 500 miles out of range. The Daily Mail has the map:

Hawaii may lie just outside the range of North Korea for now, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates has prudently ordered missile interceptors to the island chain. At the same time, US forces track a North Korean ship hugging the Chinese coast that may be carrying nuclear weapons and missiles, although it’s not clear what actions could be taken against it as the UN resolution regarding this threat amazingly forces navies to ask permission before coming aboard. Yes, I’m sure North Korea will gladly let American sailors onboard to confiscate their contraband arsenal. Good thinkin’ there, UN.

With all the recent worries over Iran and North Korea, you have to wonder if President Obama regrets downplaying their significance on the camapign trail by calling them “tiny countries” compared to the former Soviet Union. You have to wonder if any of his supporters are realizing the sheer naivete of that statement. North Korea has been more bellicose in the last few months than it has for several years prior, and it makes you wonder if Kim Jong Il’s regime is sensing a lack of will on foreign policy matters from the new administration.

In any case, no matter how imminent a threat you believe North Korea to be (and that includes the insane dictator giving his weapons to terrorists), how much longer are we going to be able to laugh off that country’s almost theatrical belligerence? If a country deliberately launches weapons at one of our 50 states, what more do they have to do before we take them seriously? The days of North Korea as a trumped-up threat are coming quickly to a close, and it ought to be increasingly clear that no amount of negotiation, which has already failed, will deter a nation set at playing a dangerous game of chicken with the United States.

Fired Inspector General strikes back at Obama admin smear

Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees grants to community organizations, is hitting back at an Obama administration which fired him and then claimed his “confused” and “disoriented” behavior at a May meeting was the reason for his firing. Mr. Walpin had this to say:

That’s a total lie … It appears to suggest that I was removed because I was disabled — based on one occasion out of hundreds. … I would never say President Obama doesn’t have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states.

Walpin went on to say that Biden’s multiple gaffes aren’t held against the Vice President. And if the administration really had no ulterior motive in firing Walpin, it seems like a total sleaze move to smear him as basically senile (which he’s quite obviously not) in an effort to discredit him.

Unfortunately, it seems like there might be more to the story. The FBI is now investigating Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, Obama supporter and Americorps grant beneficiary, for obstruction of justice relating to an investigation that Mr. Walpin had conducted against him. Mr. Walpin’s firing came amidst his criticism of Americorps grants and the aforementioned investigation of Mayor Johnson, making his removal from a position of oversight and subsequent smearing more than a little suspicious.

There may be crony politics at work here, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Obama administration was giving lucrative grants to their buddies in the community service area, and got rid of Walpin when he started raising a fuss. We’ll see how all that pans out, but regardless whether the graft happened, I say good for Walpin for not taking a shameful slime job lying down.

Update: Firing a competent Inspector General for investigating too vigorously and then slandering him is now “an act of political courage”. Simply amazing. What’s more, the rabbit hole may go a little deeper. Reported by the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere, another Inspector has also been removed recently by the International Trade Commission, and bailout public watchdog Neil Barofsky has been stymied in his efforts to perform his duty by a Treasury Department that’s holding back documents. This may get interesting.

Democrats momentarily retreat in clash over health care

As five separate panels compete to produce health care reform bills that can pass muster in both Houses of Congress, opposition by a wide array of groups is growing over the projected cost of any potential health care plan. Congressional Budget Office estimates of $1-4 trillion over 10 years along with many still left uninsured have given serious blows to the credibility of a government-run and government-funded plan, and Democrats are growing increasingly nervous over potential fallout over a costly plan. One indication of this is Sen. Max Baucus, Senate Finance Committee Chairman, withdrawing a health care bill he had planned to introduce today over cost concerns.

The numbers from the CBO, which are about as nonpartisan as you can get on the Hill, should concern anyone – the cost is quite simply unsustainable, especially for a nation as deep in debt and deficits as we are and one which is already undergoing tough economic times. Innovative incentives and restructuring might accomplish many of the same health care goals, but Democrats are instead relying on the only thing they apparently know how to do – create more bureaucracy and then throw large sums of money at it.

The public, no matter how much some may want health care reform, are growing wary of all of the rapid government spending, to say nothing of the competitive pitfalls of a government plan directly in competition with private ones. The goal of some, despite what HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius might tell you, is to eventually crowd the private plans out with government as the sole remaining option. The cost and damaging government intrusion make all the potential bills with “public options” dangerously unrealistic for an America that can ill afford expensive experiments that seem doomed to failure.