You don’t say. Unexpectedly! too…
As Glenn often says, a repeat of Carter is a best-case scenario.
[Update a few minutes later]
Really? You don’t say. Stagflation creates a dangerous position for the economy.
You don’t say. Unexpectedly! too…
As Glenn often says, a repeat of Carter is a best-case scenario.
[Update a few minutes later]
Really? You don’t say. Stagflation creates a dangerous position for the economy.
…looks like a huge improvement over the one he’ll be replacing:
Before earning a Harvard law degree magna cum laude (and helping found the Harvard Latino Law Review) and clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Cruz’s senior thesis at Princeton — his thesis adviser was professor Robert George, one of contemporary conservatism’s intellectual pinups — was on the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th Amendments.
Then as now, Cruz argued that these amendments, properly construed, would buttress the principle that powers not enumerated are not possessed by the federal government.
I doubt if Kay Bailey even understands what those amendments mean, or why they’re in the Constitution at all. Good riddance.
The Senate has finally voted to end ethanol subsidies. So what will happen in the House? And conference? And will the White House go along?
A union leader Godwinizes a rally in New Jersey, right out of the gate.
[Friday morning update]
It’s hard to get good goons these days:
When people who are used to dealing with cave-ins, or ladles of molten metal, hit the streets, they’re putting those traits to work in an environment that’s probably less dangerous than the one they work in every day. That makes them pretty formidable.
In fact, it made them so formidable that they were able to put together unions solid enough to send the industries they depended on overseas, where labor was more tractable, because the bosses weren’t willing to face the headache of trying to get rid of the unions, and couldn’t afford to pay the wages the unions, with their toughness, had managed to extract.
But miners and steelworkers are one thing. When the public employees of, say, Wisconsin hit the streets, it looked more like a bunch of disgruntled DMV clerks and graduate teaching assistants, because, well, that’s what it was.
Though they displayed more creativity in signage than you might expect from steelworkers, overall, they brought pretty much the same work habits to their protests that they bring to their jobs. (Sleeping in the capitol? Pretty much what they do at the office.)
America’s DMV clerks aren’t known for toughness and dedication on the job, and it would be asking a lot to expect them to display such characteristics for the first time when they’re off the job.
As the author of the editorial would say in other contexts, heh.
An epic fail:
Let’s consider this:
A. Britain, France, Italy, and Germany all announced they would vote against unilateral independence before Obama did anything. He didn’t twist their arms; they took the lead.
B. There is no evidence that Obama has tried to twist anyone’s arm in Europe on this issue. Quite the opposite, he’s tried to get them to endorse his program of: We’ll get Palestine independence real fast so they don’t need to go to the UN. In other words, it is an appeasement strategy.
C. No, he has not given “ultimatums”; he’s just said he’s against it and will vote against it. In saying that, he’s assuming that it will go to the UN. An ultimatum is when you threaten someone with serious consequences unless they give in. He has not done so.
D. “He knows Israel is [our] only ally in the Mideast.” This is the most interesting sentence of all. No public action Obama has taken demonstrates that in any way. We only have the ritual pro-Israel statements. And such things as continued good military relations are not expressions of Obama’s personal views, but of Defense Department policies and sheer inertia.
Unfortunately, failure doesn’t distinguish this policy from any of his others.
The more than 2,000 weapons that the Obama Justice Department allowed to be delivered to Mexican narco-terrorist cartels are thought to have been used in the shooting of an estimated 150 Mexican law enforcement officers and soldiers battling the cartels. Two American law enforcement officers have also presumably fallen prey to these weapons, along with an unknown number of civilians on both sides of the border.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has purposefully armed narco-terrorist drug cartels that have been accused of bombings, ambushes, mass murders, public executions, and the assassination of police, politicians, and civic leaders.
Obama’s Justice Department armed the enemy of our neighbor and ally, providing enough arms to equip ten infantry companies, or two battalions, of violent drug dealers.
What did the president know, and when did he know it?
In a world in which we didn’t have a corrupt Attorney General, there would be people being charged under the False Statements Act. I don’t know whether or not the Congress can impeach a cabinet officer, but if not, they should demand Holder’s resignation and threaten to impeach the president if he refuses.
[Update a few minutes later]
I should add that what makes this even worse was the apparent purpose of it — to falsely accuse American gun sellers of selling guns to the cartels to allow them to further restrict the right to bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
[Friday morning update]
This should end Holder’s tenure. But it probably won’t.
Should we bring back the lash?
It would be a lot less cruel than being raped.
And while we’re at it, I’d have to agree that the stocks had their uses, too.
No, Pakistan is essentially at war with us, and has been for many years.
More thoughts from Stanley Kurtz:
Unfortunately, it’s now time to at least begin thinking about what the United States should do in case of either an overt anti-American coup within Pakistan’s army, or in case Kayani himself is forced to effectively break relations. Although liberation from Pakistan’s double-game and reversion to honest hostility might come as a welcome relief to some, I see no good scenario here.
Should anti-American elements in Pakistan’s army displace Kayani, they would presumably hold our supply lines to Afghanistan hostage to a cessation of drone attacks. The step beyond that would be to cut off our Afghanistan supply lines altogether. Our minimum response to either of these moves would likely be a suspension of aid (on which Pakistan’s military is now dependent) and moves to provide India with technology that would give them major advantages over Pakistan. Pakistan may run eagerly into the arms of China at that point.
These developments would pose many further dangers and questions. Could we find new supply lines, and at what geo-strategic price? Should we strike terrorist refuges in Pakistan, perhaps clashing with Pakistan’s own forces as we do so? Would Pakistan actively join the Taliban to fight us in Afghanistan? In short, would the outcome of a break between America and Pakistan be war–whether low-level or outright?
There is no good or easy answer here. If there is any single spot it would be hardest for America to walk away from conflict, Pakistan is it. Bin Laden was not alone. Pakistan shelters our greatest terrorist enemies. An inability to strike them there would be intolerable, both in terms of the danger posed for terrorism here in the United States, and for the safety of our troops in Afghanistan.
Yet the fundamental problem remains Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, as well as the sympathy of many of its people with our enemies. Successful clashes with Pakistan’s military may only prompt sympathizers to hand nuclear material to al-Qaeda. The army is virtually the only thing holding Pakistan together. A military defeat and splintering of the army could bring an Islamist coup, or at least the fragmentation of the country, and consequent massive expansion of its lawless regions. These gloomy prospects probably explain why our defense officials keep counseling patience, even as the insults from Pakistan grow.
Pakistan has always been the biggest problem since 911 (and before, actually, though we didn’t realize it). It would be an impossible military task to conquer the country, absent massive carnage, but I wonder if there would be some way to take away the nukes?
The Czechs want out of our missile defense plans:
They see the Obama administration as more concerned with appeasing Russia — at their expense…
There’s going to be a lot of necessary bridge rebuilding (and “resetting”) with our real allies after this disastrous administration. Let’s hope it won’t have to wait another five and a half years — it may be too late.
…because it is exempt from ObamaCare. Makes sense to me.