Part 25--March, 2011

* 3/3/11--Roger Vinson, the U.S. federal judge who ruled Obamacare unconstitutional in its entirety, has ruled again on the health-care law. On Thursday, Judge Vinson issued a stay on his earlier ruling that the law could not be enforced. In doing so, he sent a clear message to the Obama administration: Appeal my decision to a higher court or stop implementing the law. When Judge Vinson ruled on Jan. 31 that the health-care law was unconstitutional, the administration followed up by filing a motion for clarification rather than filing an official appeal. Vinson's ruling criticized the administration for that action.--dailycaller.com

* 3/4/11--'I can take care of my enemies all right," Warren Harding once said. "But my friends, my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!" In the sense that so irked Harding, Judge Gladys Kessler is a great good friend of ObamaCare. The US district-court judge in Washington, DC, delivered a more telling blow against the law in the course of ruling it constitutional than critics have in assailing it as a travesty. At issue is the individual mandate. Two other district-court judges have struck it down on grounds that Congress doesn't have the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to require that everyone buy health insurance. If someone doesn't purchase insurance, he hasn't done anything. He isn't engaged in activity that may or may not affect interstate commerce, but in sheer inactivity. Never before has anyone thought Congress could regulate nonevents. The easy-to-grasp distinction between an activity and inactivity is one of the most powerful legal arguments of ObamaCare's opponents. But they hadn't yet run up against a jurist as ingenious as Judge Kessler. She brushes aside the activity/inactivity distinction because not doing something is a choice and therefore "mental activity." Why hadn't someone thought of this before? The sophists in Eric Holder's Justice Department must be embarrassed that they didn't themselves dredge up this killer rejoinder. The fundamental question in the ObamaCare case is whether there is any constraint on the ability of Congress to regulate economic activity. Do we still live in a system of dual sovereignty, split between the federal government and the states, as set out by the Constitution? Does the federal government only have certain enumerated powers? Is anything beyond its ambit? Judge Kessler's argument is a ringing "no" on all three counts. Kessler, a liberal Clinton appointee, takes what has been a Commerce Clause case and practically makes it a First Amendment matter. It's the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets. Kessler, like Kagan before her, does everyone the favor of clarifying the issue. Kessler writes, "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something." When President Obama is faulted during the next Mideast crisis for his passivity, he can shoot back that he's really quite active -- he's deciding not to do anything. We now know that this constitutes robust -- muscular, even -- activity. Under the Kessler principle, there's no nonconduct that the federal government can't reach. Every day, most Americans engage in nonactivities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler or not to buy a Snuggie, you've impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We've gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something. Long ago, the Commerce Clause got stretched beyond recognition. In 1942, the Supreme Court used it to uphold a law penalizing a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his approved allotment, even though it was for his own consumption. At least the poor sap was doing something. According to Kessler, Congress could also punish him for acting on a thought not to grow wheat. Opponents of ObamaCare say that if it's blessed by the courts, there will no longer be any limiting principle on federal regulatory power. If that seems far-fetched, behold the mental activities of one Judge Gladys Kessler.--Rich Lowry, nationalreview.com (From NY Post)

* 3/5/11--WASHINGTON -- President Obama is coming under mounting criticism for his administration's slow response to step in and try to stop the killing in Libya and aid refugees. Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent further slaughter by forces loyal to Moammar Khadafy. "If you want Khadafy to go, then one of the steps among many would be to establish a no-fly zone to prevent him from massacring his own people from the air," said McCain (Ariz.). There are "not a lot of aircraft that Khadafy has flying, his air-defense systems are certainly old, and it is not a major challenge -- at least in my assessment -- of being able to impose a no-fly zone." The White House has repeatedly stated that it is keeping the no-fly-zone option "on the table," but Pentagon officials have testified about the complexity of putting it together. Two US Air Force cargo planes flew to Djerba, Tunisia, with 4,000 blankets, 40 rolls of plastic sheeting and almost 10,000 water containers for Libyan refugees. The C-130 planes were set today to carry Egyptian refugees from Libya back to Egypt. But Obama, who called forcefully for Khadafy's resignation on Thursday after failing to speak on the issue for several days, is also getting criticized for US diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. "You wonder why, for example, did it take so long for even getting humanitarian teams to the border," said Michael Singh, a former National Security Council official under Condoleeza Rice now at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. "We're still not really acting strongly in any way, shape or form to support opposition movements."--NY Post

* 3/6/11--Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe's foreign minister, said the sanctions – which prohibit member states from providing Iran with raw materials that it could use to make a nuclear weapon – were unfair and hypocritical. He said that Zimbabwe, which is also the subject of sanctions over human rights abuses perpetrated by President Robert Mugabe's supporters, would benefit economically from the agreement. A leaked intelligence report suggests Iran will be awarded with exclusive access to Zimbabwe's uranium in return for providing the country with fuel. The report – compiled by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog – said Iran's Foreign and Co-operative Ministers had visited Zimbabwe to strike a deal, and sent engineers to assess uranium deposits. Experts say the move contradicts Iran's claim that it now has enough domestic uranium supplies to sustain its nuclear energy ambitions. They say Zimbabwe's defiance of sanctions and its support for the pariah state will scare those considering investing in its economy, which is only just starting to recover after years of hyperinflation. Uranium ore, or yellow cake, can be converted to a uranium gas which is then processed into nuclear fuel or enriched to make nuclear weapons. The UN imposed fresh sanctions on Iran last year after it refused to halt uranium enrichment. Zimbabwe's uranium stocks consist of an estimated 455,000 tons at Kanyemba, north of Harare. One metallurgist with knowledge of the deposit said it would take two to three years of development before it produced uranium and it would be exhausted in about five years. Mr Mumbengegwi said: "Zimbabwe has rich uranium reserves, but is faced with shortage of funds and does not possess the technical knowledge and equipment needed for extracting [them] ... Any country has the right to use peaceful nuclear energy based on international rules." Mr. Mugabe has previously dismissed as "illegal" the US and EU sanctions that target him and members of his regime. "Western states follow the approach of sanctions towards countries which do not yield to their domination and act against their interests," Mr Mumbengegwi, a member of Mr Mugabe's Zanu PF party, said. People close to the UN confirmed that Zimbabwe would be in direct contravention of sanctions if it sold uranium to Iran, but admitted the international body could do little to punish it. Ben Rhode, a Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said there would be concern about the deal internationally. "Iran already has a guaranteed fuel supply from Russia for the lifetime of its Bushehr power reactor," he said. "It is therefore difficult to understand the peaceful, commercial nature of such a procurement." Judy Smith-Hohn, of South Africa's Institute for Security Studies, said Mr Mugabe's Movement for Democratic Change partners in Zimbabwe's fragile coalition, could veto the deal. "Because the world is looking the other way, towards events in North Africa, the Zimbabwean authorities are testing the boundaries and this is most likely part of it," she said.--telegraph.co.uk

* 3/6/11-- The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago. Waivers have become a hot-button issue for Republicans, eager to expose any vulnerabilities in the reform law.--thehill.com

* 3/8/11--WASHINGTON -- Critics of the new health-care law are ridiculing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for essentially admitting a key GOP contention: that the administration has been "double counting" Medicare savings by saying the same $500 billion would be used both for extending the life of the current program and for funding its new mandates. "Not that it's any comfort to the American people, but the administration seems to finally be acknowledging a basic fact: Over a half-trillion dollars can't be simultaneously used to both fund Medicare -- a program on the verge of insolvency -- and another unsustainable entitlement that is ObamaCare," fumed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) yesterday. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said, "The more we dig into the new health-care law, the more we see how devious the Obama administration was in deceiving Congress and the public about the expense of it." Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) angrily confronted Sebelius on the accounting gimmick during congressional testimony Thursday. "There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can't double count," he said. "You can't count . . . " "What's the $500 billion in cuts for? . . . Are you using it to save Medicare or are you using it for health reform?" She responded, "Both." An HHS spokesman told the Web site Daily Caller that the way the health-law costs are estimated is "entirely consistent" with the way the cost of legislation has been estimated for 30 years. When the bill was moving through Congress in 2008 and 2009, then-Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, compared it to "Bernie Madoff accounting." Meanwhile, the number of organizations given HHS waivers exempting them from some of the more expensive provisions of the law reached 1,000, according to the latest department statistics. Republicans have slammed the waivers as an admission of problems with the law, and claim an inordinate number have gone to the Democrats' union allies, including the United Federation of Teachers and SEIU 1199, the health-care workers union.--NY Post

* 3/8/11--A homegrown Muslim terrorist who was freed from prison after cooperating with federal authorities hasn't given up his bloodthirsty desire to see Americans murdered overseas, newly unsealed court papers reveal. Admitted al Qaeda operative Mohammed Junaid Babar -- a Pakistani-born US citizen who grew up in Queens -- told the feds he "still supports today the killing of American military service members on battlefields in Muslim countries." "Babar has advised that he also supports the killing of Americans [both military and civilian] in Muslim countries 'occupied' by the United States," according to the Manhattan federal court filing. Babar, 35, was quietly sentenced to probation and allowed to enter the witness-protection program in December after serving less than five years behind bars for helping set up a terror-training camp in Pakistan in 2003. The camp provided deadly lessons to Taliban militants fighting US soldiers in Afghanistan, as well as the suicide bombers who attacked London subways, killing 52 innocent victims, in July 2005. News of his release, first reported last month, sparked outrage in Great Britain, where a lawyer representing survivors and victims' families called it "crazy." Babar had faced between 30 and 70 years in the slammer, but in a letter to the judge made public yesterday, prosecutor Brendan McGuire said he provided "extraordinary" assistance after FBI agents picked him up outside his parents' house in April 2004. Meanwhile, President Obama yesterday approved the resumption of military trials for Guantanamo detainees, ending a two-year ban.--Post Wire Services

* 3/9/11--WASHINGTON -- National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned following a hidden camera sting that revealed a former NPR executive admitting the radio network could survive without government money, the public broadcaster said Wednesday. "It is with deep regret that I tell you that the NPR Board of Directors has accepted the resignation of Vivian Schiller as President and CEO of NPR, effective immediately," NPR Board of Directors Chairman Dave Edwards said in a statement. "I recognize the magnitude of this news -- and that it comes on top of what has been a traumatic period for NPR and the larger public radio community. The Board is committed to supporting NPR through this interim period and has confidence in NPR's leadership team," Edwards added. NPR came under fresh scrutiny Tuesday upon the release of a new video by conservative activist James O'Keefe, who famously posed as a pimp in 2009 and secretly recorded himself as he sought advice from ACORN workers on how to avoid police detection. In the latest video, filmed on Feb. 22, two men posed as executives from a Muslim Brotherhood front group that was supposedly considering donating $5 million to NPR. The men met with NPR executive Ron Schiller (no relation to Vivian Schiller), who was president of the NPR Foundation and senior vice president of development until last week, and Betsy Liley, NPR's director of institutional giving. "Frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding," Schiller is recorded as saying in the video, which was posted Tuesday by The Daily Caller, a conservative news website. Asked how NPR would benefit if government funding were withdrawn, Schiller said it would give the station "independence." "Number two is that our job would be a lot easier if people weren't confused about -- because we get federal funding, a lot of Americans, a lot of philanthropists actually think we get most of our money from the federal government," he said. Schiller added that "NPR would definitely survive and most of the stations would survive" if federal funding were revoked. He also took shots at the Republican party and Tea Party, saying of the Tea Party was "fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamentally Christian, and I wouldn't even call it Christian -- it's this weird Evangelical kind of movement. "The current Republican Party is not even the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is..." "Radical, racist, Islamophobic, Tea Party people?" one of the supposed donors cut in. Schiller nodded, saying: "And not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic. Basically they are, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America, gun-toting -- I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people." The video has renewed calls for an end to government funding for public broadcasting. Vivian Schiller and NPR earlier came under fire after the organization fired analyst Juan Williams last October over remarks he made about Muslims. Schiller said earlier this week that, upon reflection, "We handled the situation badly." Some in the NPR community claim Schiller, who served as CEO for two years, was forced to resign. "I'm told by sources that she was forced out," NPR's David Folkenflik said on "Morning Edition" shortly after the news broke. Joyce Slocum, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, will replace Schiller as interim CEO, while the board establishes an Executive Transition Committee to recruit and select new leadership.--NEWSCORE

* 3/9/11--WASHINGTON -- Forget the Middle East -- the White House is the real culprit behind soaring gasoline prices, Republican lawmakers declared yesterday. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) complained that President Obama's stubborn resistance to domestic oil drilling makes America more vulnerable to price hikes resulting from Mideast turmoil. The senator's outrage coincided with the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline yesterday hitting $3.71 in New York and $3.51 nationwide, up 38 cents from a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association--NY Post

* 3/9/11--"Rep. Peter King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, will hold hearings this week on Muslim extremism in the United States. The Obama administration and other pro-Islamic activists argue that because the vast majority of American Muslims aren't violent extremists, Congress has no business examining the growing numbers who are. This redirection is tantamount to saying that because most people are law-abiding, the police should ignore the study of criminal psychology. Mr. King's planned hearings will shine a bright light on a challenge the Obama administration has studiously ignored, with fatal results. Overlooking the motives of Muslim terrorists has become an O Force obsession. ... The Obama administration persistently has stricken the concept of Islamic extremism -- whether foreign or domestic -- from U.S. public policy. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security drafted a Domestic Extremist Lexicon that listed Jewish extremism as a threat and described various strands of purportedly dangerous Christian extremism but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. This document was pulled along with other questionable Homeland Security publications once their contents became public. The February 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discussed terrorism and violent extremism but didn't refer to radical Islam in any context. Likewise, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review avoids any terminology related to Islam. Mr. King's hearings are a useful step toward opening up the debate on the pressing problem of domestic Islamic extremism. Mr. Obama's inexplicable tendency to turn aside from the question has harmed the ability of the United States to deal with this threat." --The Washington Times (From Patriot Post Chronicle)

* 3/9/11-- MADISON, WI (Press Release) … After nearly a month of debate on the budget repair bill, nearly three weeks of childish stunts and delay tactics from the Democrats, the longest public hearing in state history and the longest Assembly debate in state history, the Senate met tonight to pass the non-fiscal items in the Budget Repair Bill. Sen. Fitzgerald released the following statement: "Before the election, the Democrats promised "adult leadership" in Madison. Then a month and a half into session, the Senate Democrats fled the state instead of doing their job. "In doing so, they have tarnished the very institution of the Wisconsin state Senate. This is unacceptable. "This afternoon, following a week and a half of line-by-line negotiation, Sen. Miller sent me a letter that offered three options: 1) keep collective bargaining as is with no changes, 2) take our counter-offer, which would keep collective bargaining as is with no changes, 3) or stop talking altogether. "With that letter, I realized that we're dealing with someone who is stalling indefinitely, and doesn't have a plan or an intention to return. His idea of compromise is "give me everything I want," and the only negotiating he's doing is through the media. "Enough is enough." "The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job. They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can't act on our agenda. "Tonight, the Senate will be passing the items in the budget repair bill that we can, with the 19 members who actually DO show up and do their jobs. Those items include the long-overdue reform of collective bargaining needed to help local governments absorb these budget cuts, and the 12 percent health care premium and 5 percent pension contribution. "We have confirmed with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Reference Bureau that every item in tonight's bill follows the letter of the law. "The people of Wisconsin elected us to come to Madison and do a job. Just because the Senate Democrats won't do theirs, doesn't mean we won't do ours." --wqow.com

* 3/10/11--Ah, January of 2009. Hope was in the air, but more importantly, gas was under two dollars a gallon. Since then gas prices, have gone up 67 percent and it's an ominously upward trend. Interestingly enough, the Heritage Foundation also took a look at the first 26 months of Bush's presidency -- gas only rose 7 percent during that time frame. Now obviously turmoil in the Middle East has something to do with our current astronomical gas prices, but keep in mind that by this point in the Bush presidency 9/11 had happened and we were on the verge of invading Iraq. So while the president can't be entirely responsible for global commodity prices, it's still worth asking what Obama's doing to make things worse. After all, this is the President who told us "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." This is the President that appointed a Secretary of the Interior that famously said he didn't mind if gas hit $10 a gallon. This is the President whose administration secretly urged him to bypass needed Congressional approval to create as many at 17 national monuments throughout the west, effectively closing off all that land to energy exploration forever. This is the President who has illegally tried to illegally enforce an offshore drilling ban. How much higher is gas going to go before the Administration takes a long hard look at what its doing to send gas prices through the roof?--Weekly Standard

* 3/10/11--WASHINGTON (AP) -- The top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee says Thursday's hearing on Islamic radicalism could be used by terrorists to inspire a new generation of suicide bombers. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi says in prepared remarks that Congress has a responsibility to make sure its words do not make problems worse. Spectators packed the Capitol Hill hearing room and organizers were planning an overflow room to accommodate people clamoring to witness a hearing that inspired days of protests. New York Republican Rep. Peter King says the focus on the Islamic community is appropriate because Islamic terrorism is the primary threat facing the U.S.

* 3/11/11--So yesterday the spectacle that was the House Committee on Homeland Security’s hearing on Islamic radicalization kicked off amid quite a bit of fanfare. The Left threw an absolute hissy fit over it, saying, “This hearing today is playing into al-Qaeda right now around the world." (That was the terrorism expert Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat from Texas, in case you were wondering.) But see, here’s the thing: This hearing isn’t the first of its kind. Democrat Jane Harman, who has since retired to take a private-sector position, held four hearings on extremism while she was a subcommittee chairwoman on the House Intelligence Committee. Even the lamestream media’s venerable senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, held similar hearings on radicalization in the Senate. But, that doesn’t stop the Left from taking potshots at Pete King and his committee for holding “McCarthy”-type hearings. This has been a tactic from the Left for decades: When you can’t criticize something with facts and with merit, use scare tactics and vitriolic language. Enter stage left, Rep. Al Green from Texas. During the committee hearing yesterday, Green put on a par the Ku Klux Klan with international terror organizations and said during an interview with Kerry Picket of the Washington Times that “we ought to investigate all of them [terrorists] and that would include the KKK." When it comes to documenting the Left and all of its absurdity, these comments don’t astound as much as they disappoint. When the Democrats stoop to this level in regard to our nation’s security and mock the sheer notion of these hearings, that is truly what enrages the American public, specifically these people’s constituents (or at least it should).--Adam Tragone, Human Events

* 3/11/11--The Republican House terminated a mortgage refinancing program established by President Obama and rescinded $8 billion in TARP funds designated for it. The “Federal Housing Administration Refinance Program Termination Act” passed the House on Thursday by a vote of 256-171, with 18 Democrats voting in favor of it. The unspent money will go toward reducing the U.S. debt, which is currently more than $14 trillion.--humanevents.com

* 3/11/11--The standoff in Wisconsin between the fiscal common realism of Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the entrenched state unions and their Democrat lackeys came, at least in part, to an abrupt end this week. State Senate Republicans used a parliamentary procedure to remove the spending measures from Walker's proposal to limit collective bargaining significantly, allowing GOP senators to pass the bill without the chamber's 14 Democrats, who fled the state three weeks ago in an attempt to prevent passage by denying the chamber a quorum. The state assembly followed the senate, passing the bill 53-42. Rather than debate Walker's argument that state unions are severely hampering Wisconsin's ability to close its nearly $4 billion budget gap, Democrats found it easier to chastise Republicans as cowards -- all while they themselves hid in an Illinois hotel to avoid participating in the citizens' elected government. Union leaders and their hired thugs descended on Madison to lock up the Capitol building and protest raucously, issuing threats (and in some cases, trying to carry them out) of physical violence and even death against Republicans. They overwhelmed state house security, climbed through windows and have done over $7.5 million in damage to the building. The source of their anger is obvious -- without government support, public-sector unions are shrinking in size and power. Given that union support is almost entirely for Democrats, it's no wonder both parties want to continue the cozy relationship. This law will be a major blow for those who seek to continue the status quo of cushy jobs and generous pensions at our expense. Union organizers are now hoping to reverse this defeat by initiating recall drives for the Republican senators and Gov. Walker, once again proving that the Left's respect for the American system of government is limited to how far they can bend that system to their own will. --Patriot Post Digest

* 3/11/11--Barack Obama has hired yet another czar -- this time a "Cabinet czar" to serve as a liaison to his own Cabinet. Media adviser Tom Gavin has been appointed to serve as Cabinet communications director, and his job description is "to better coordinate with and utilize members of the Cabinet." Isn't the president the Cabinet czar? We suppose Obama is too busy being the golf czar and needs a Cabinet czar to keep those pests from interfering with his game.--Patriot Post Digest

* 3/11/11--Having painted George W. Bush as a torturer, a destroyer of constitutional freedoms, and a villain from the dystopian novel "1984," in true Orwellian fashion, Team Chosen One has arrived full-circle at exactly the same policy positions on terrorist detainees as the Bush administration. Specifically, the Obama administration announced this week that military tribunals would resume, thus implicitly conceding that Guantanamo Bay would likewise remain open for the foreseeable future. The Leftmedia was too busy doing the drug called Charlie Sheen to take full notice. This decision owes to the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling and its congressional backlash, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively relegates detainee tribunals to Gitmo. Obama's abrupt pirouette was accompanied by not so much as a hint of admission of miscalculation regarding the wisdom of Bush administration policies. The Wall Street Journal summed it up best: "No one has done more to revive the reputation of Bush-era antiterror policies than the Obama Administration." Perhaps its court "win" over terrorist Ahmed Ghailani was a bit too much of an embarrassment for the administration to suffer yet another public drubbing by admitting -- again -- it was wrong. Of course, Americans now recognize Ghailani simply as the terrorist who was acquitted of more than 224 murder counts in a dog-and-pony "showcase" civil trial. They also remember that he was just one acquittal count shy of walking away as a free man, notwithstanding his pivotal role in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Incredibly, however, Team Best-and-Brightest still hasn't received the memo, reaffirming its commitment this week to civilian trials for terrorists in the same breath it announced resumption of military tribunals. Apparently, the liberal alternative to admitting an error in judgment is simply to affirm the error while simultaneously back-peddling on actual policy. Finally, the administration also announced it will dispense with a cornerstone of the laws of armed conflict, declaring that the U.S. will now treat as legally binding a radical 1977 add-on to the Geneva Conventions, a protocol rejected since the Reagan administration. This protocol effectively erases the otherwise clear line between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants, effectively de-incentivizing potential enemies to follow the laws of armed conflict. Thus, while terrorists do not respect any of the commonly recognized international combatant rules, American soldiers will now be forced to treat them as though they do, affording them protections they do not deserve and ultimately putting even more American lives at risk.--P.P. Digest

* 3/11/11--The U.S. military has been taking the fight to Jihadistan on two fronts for nearly 10 years and faces the possibility of fighting elsewhere in a restive Middle East. The troops are stressed and equipment is wearing out. Throw in other duties the military performs, such as disaster-relief missions, as well as competition from a rising Chinese military that may match U.S. capabilities in a few years, and it's now obvious that one of the most serious problems the U.S. military faces is, uh, well, that it's too manly and too white. Seriously. You can't make this stuff up. That is the conclusion of a report by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission ordered by Congress in 2009 and released Monday. The report declares that the U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change its promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat. The Commission, whose members included military personnel as well as businessmen and civilians, said greater diversity in the military's leadership is needed in order to better reflect the diversity of U.S. Armed Forces and American society as a whole. The report said efforts to develop a more equal opportunity military have generally succeeded, but "despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve." On the contrary, the U.S. military is not a laboratory for Leftist utopian fantasies. As we have stated before, the sole purpose of the U.S. military is to defend our nation and serve its interests by bringing controlled, sustained violence against an enemy until that enemy is dead or defeated. Nothing more, nothing less. Any policy which jeopardizes that purpose must be avoided at all costs. The best, and only the best, leaders must be allowed to rise, based on merit and nothing else. If this results in a military that doesn't exactly track the minority percentages of American society, then so be it. At least we'll know that we have the best military possible protecting that society.--P.P. Digest

* 3/13/11--First I did a double take. He said what? I read it again and the shock waves followed. A beleaguered President Obama has told aides it would be so much easier to be the president of China, The New York Times reports. There are two ways to read the remark, which is attributed to anonymous aides. One is that Obama resents the burden of global leadership that comes with the American presidency. The other is that he longs for an authoritarian system, where he need tolerate no dissent. Under either or both interpretations, his confession carries a dose of self-pity that means Obama has hit a wall. He is in over his head, and he knows it. Even before the horror in Japan, the president faced a litany of nightmares. From Libya to Iran to Afghanistan to gas prices, unemployment and rising debt, Obama is surrounded by serious trouble. His responses range from halfhearted to wrongheaded. Nothing is working. Unhappy voters already repudiated his first two years and might fire him when they get the chance. It is a moment that brings home the truth of the sign on Harry Truman's desk: "The buck stops here." Yet my suspicion is that it's not the problems per se that have Obama envying a lower rung on the global ladder. It's that he regards them as endless distractions that keep getting in the way of his transformative agenda. He is a man of the faculty lounge who wants a blank slate so he can remake the nation into a more perfect place, as he sees it. Remember, he greeted his election with the messiah-like claim that future generations would say, "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." But damn it, the country and the world won't cooperate. Because he has no significant experience that would give him a framework for any other response, he is reduced to vaporous platitudes that dispirit allies and embolden adversaries. He wants America to be less exceptional and more like every other nation. He's uncomfortable with our status as the No. 1 superpower, as he made clear with his apology tours and by submitting to the lowest common denominator in the United Nations. He talks about wanting Moammar Khadafy to go but takes no action to make it happen and even signed on to an arms embargo that the State Department says bars our supplying the rebels. As The Wall Street Journal wrote, the rising slaughter reveals "what the world without US leadership looks like." Meanwhile, he punts on the budget mess, as if details are beneath him. On soaring gas prices, the purpose of his dreary Friday press conference, his policy seems to be peevishness that he must be bothered. As shocking as the China lament is, it's not surprising. The desire to sidestep messy reality is the thread that runs through his presidency, starting with the campaign. As the economy melted down in the fall of 2008 and in the days after he took office, he never changed goals. He promised a health-care takeover, "investments" in education, and a commitment to weaning America off oil and coal. Come recession and war, he has done his utmost to deliver all three. He has broken the bank and damaged the jobs machine to get them. Under different circumstances, that dogged persistence might be a virtue. But the problems are getting worse, not better, and yet he won't adapt. His stubborn refusal to face squarely the nation's concerns has created a vacuum at home similar to the one abroad. And now he confides the Oval Office's crown of responsibility does not fit him. Much of the world shares the sentiment..--Michael Goodwin, NY Post

* 3/14/11-- Congressional Democrats and President Obama are blocking every effort by Republicans to cut runaway government spending, leaving Washington at a stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) even failed to pass a token spending cut last week. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has fought any cut from current spending levels in a Continuing Resolution (CR). And, Obama announced for the second time that he will veto the Republican spending cuts, while he refuses even to negotiate with Congress on the budget. After months of refusing to cut any spending, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) finally came out with a Democratic offer to cut spending for this current fiscal year by a mere $4.7 billion. The budget deficit for the current fiscal year is projected to be $1.6 trillion. So, the Senate Democrats’ spending cuts would lower the federal deficit by a mere .004%. “At a time when Washington is borrowing about $4 billion a day, Democratic leaders want to cut about four and a half billion in government spending for the rest of the fiscal year and then call it a day,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.). When the Democrats’ spending proposal came to the floor for a vote last week, Reid could not even keep his own Democrats on board because the spending cuts were so insignificant. When the Democratic alternative spending bill came to a vote in the Senate, 11 Democrats voted against it. The final vote was 42-58. In contrast, the Republican House-passed Continuing Resolution (CR) which cuts government spending this year by $61 billion got more votes (44-56), but did not meet the 60-vote threshold needed to pass. McConnell held together all his Republicans for the CR (H.R. 1), except three who wanted even deeper cuts, Jim DeMint (S.C.) and freshmen Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.). So all of the Republicans in the Senate and 11 of the Democrats want to cut government spending this year, while Reid and other Democratic leaders fight to keep almost all the taxpayers’ money in Washington. The Democratic House and Senate last year did not pass a budget or any of the appropriations bills. To keep the government from shutting down, McConnell and Obama negotiated a three-month CR in December. On February 19, the House Republicans passed a CR (H.R. 1) that cut $61 billion in government spending for the current fiscal year, which goes through September 30. Reid at first refused to take up the House CR, calling the cuts “draconian,” and Obama said that he would veto the bill if it passed the Senate. So to keep the government funded after March 4, Congress had to pass a short-term CR. However, Boehner said that any short-term CR to keep the government funded while budget negotiations continued would have to include cuts in spending. Thus, the House passed a two-week CR last week that cuts spending by $4 billion and expires March 18. While the Senate Democrats blocked the House CR, the House Democrats were claiming that they had already compromised on spending cuts. Pelosi said last week that the House Democrats “have, I repeat, have cut $41 billion from President Obama’s budget already." “We’ve come up more than halfway to meet the Republican proposals, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) told reporters this week. But, the Democratic leaders’ saying that they had already cut spending is merely a reference to the December CR which was $41 billion less than Obama’s proposed budget, which was never enacted. So the House Democrats are not willing to cut a single penny from current spending, but claiming that they have already come “halfway”. To be fair, the Democrats learned how to claim bigger spending-cut numbers from the example set by the House Republicans. When Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) first announced the CR in early February, he said that it met the Republicans’ “Pledge To America” by cutting spending back to 2008 levels and saving $100 billion from the President’s budget. But when the actual numbers were released, it was clear that Ryan’s CR did not bring spending back to 2008 levels and cut only $32 billion from current 2010 levels. The House Republican leadership spent days trying to spin reporters by saying that the Pledge to cut $100 billion was always in reference to Obama’s proposed budget and was for a calendar year. But it was the backlash from the freshmen and the conservative wing that forced Speaker of the House John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to ask the Appropriations Committee to cut more discretionary spending. By the time the CR came to the floor for a vote, the Republicans had cut another $29 billion from this year’s spending. So, the Democrats’ claim that their $41 billion is halfway to $100 billion means that both sides are citing non-existent cuts to hypothetical spending levels. Bottom line: Both sides are cooking the books to make their political points and improve their image with the public. While the Senate debated the House spending bill last week, President Obama put out his second veto threat. The White House said that Obama would veto H.R. 1 if it passed the Senate because “the unbalanced bill would undermine the nation’s economic recovery and its ability to succeed in a complex global environment." Obama has now put out two veto threats, but has not participated at all in the negotiations with Congress on the budget. "Where is the President?” asked an outraged Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.). “We continue to hear from him and the White House that, ‘We are going to meet you halfway.’ Well, where is the President?" Instead, Obama named Vice President Joe Biden as his “chief negotiator” with congressional leaders on the CR. But, Biden left the country before the Senate vote to travel and went to Finland, Russia and Moldova. “The Vice President is the main negotiator; the Vice President is not even in the country today. We have less than a week and a half to go. You ask the press secretary at the White House, ‘Well who’s the lead negotiator with the Vice President gone?’ ‘Can’t tell you that.”” said Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R.-Calif.) last Wednesday. Biden’s only involvement with the CR was to make phone calls to Boehner and McConnell. He tried calling Reid but they did not connect (There is more than one phone line on Air Force 2. I know; I’ve flown on it many times.) So what are the next steps? The House will vote on Tuesday on a three-week CR that will cut an additional $6 billion in spending. The House Republicans are putting the CR out a week earlier than the deadline in order to disarm the Democrats from making accusations of shutting down the government. The Senate and President are expected to go along with the new CR. For the negotiations on the long-term CR to occur, Republicans insist that the Democrats have to come up with real spending cuts in order for them to negotiate down from the $61 billion level. But so far, the only offer on the table is the $61 billion from the House CR, which failed to pass the Senate last week. “Where is the Senate Democrat plan? I’m not going to sit up here and negotiate with myself!” an indignant Boehner said last Thursday. The negotiations between the House Republicans and Senate Democrats will have to resume, but the resolution and the final level of spending cuts is still unpredictable.--humanevents.com

* 3/15/11--Confidence in the U.S. system of government has dropped to a new low in more than 35 years, with public attitudes burdened by continued economic discontent, soaring gasoline prices, record opposition to the war in Afghanistan -- and a letdown in hopes for political progress after a bout of bipartisanship last fall. Only 26 percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they're optimistic about "our system of government and how well it works," down 7 points since October to the fewest in surveys dating to 1974. Almost as many, 23 percent, are pessimistic, the closest these measures ever have come. The rest, a record high, are "uncertain" about the system. The causes are many. Despite a significant advance, more than half still say the economy has not yet begun to recover. And there's trouble at the pump: Seventy-one percent in this poll, produced for ABC News Langer Research Associates, report financial hardship as a result of rising gas prices. Forty-four percent call it a "serious" hardship.--abcnews.go.com

* 3/15/11--The Middle East is burning and Japan is drowning and dealing with the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, U.S. gas prices are at an all time high, unemployment is still at 9 percent, Washington has yet to pass a budget for the year, the National Debt is scheduled to hit $15 trillion this year. So what's our President doing? Golfing and filling out his bracket for the 2011 NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament. Democrats and Republicans alike have been looking to the White House for leadership on pressing issues both domestically and for foreign policy options and have been met with nothing. “They want him leading the country; they don't want him serving as a cable commentator for the issue of the day,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer when pressed about Obama’s passive move. --townhall.com

* 3/16/11--We have now gotten to the point where if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated. Just an Olympiad ago, in 2007, the picture was quite different. In fact, in that year, federal revenues not only exceeded mandatory spending, but they exceeded it by more than $1 trillion ($1.117 trillion, to be more exact). The next year, 2008, during which the gap fell to a still-huge $914 billion, the Bush administration released a report issuing a rather dire warning. The report said that, “if left unchanged, mandatory spending alone is projected to exceed total projected Government receipts in approximately 50 years.” That dire prediction has now come true — about 50 years earlier than projected. Through the years, mandatory spending has steadily increased (with some fluctuation from year to year) in relation to revenues. Here is mandatory spending as a percentage of total federal receipts, by year, according to published White House figures:

1970: roughly 33 percent

2000: 47 percent

2005: 61 percent

2010: 90 percent

2011: 101 percent

The trajectory seems clear. Meanwhile, President Obama has not proposed entitlement reform. He has, however, proposed adding a massive new entitlement: Obamacare. At the same time, the baby boomers’ retirements are looming, which means higher entitlement expenditures and a smaller proportion of the population available to finance them. In light of all of this, what do the Obama administration’s projections for mandatory spending as a percentage of total federal receipts look like, going forward? Here they are:

2012: 81 percent

2013: 73 percent

2014: 70 percent

2015: 69 percent

Seriously? These estimates are made possible because (among other things) the Obama administration is projecting a 21 percent increase in federal receipts from 2011 to 2012. Never mind that we haven’t seen an increase like that in 40 years. In fact, the largest increase in the past 40 years has been 16 percent. How is the Obama administration’s track record in forecasting such increases? For 2010, it projected a 9 percent increase in receipts. The actual tally was 3 percent. For 2011, it projected a 19 percent increase in receipts. Just one year later (in this year's budget), it has now modified that projection to less than 1 percent (actually, to 0.5 percent). So that’s a swing from projecting the highest increase in the past 40 years, to projecting essentially no increase at all — in just 12 months. To tackle our very real fiscal crisis, we need serious numbers and serious leadership, not just blind hope that things will (somehow) change. Now that we are at the point where our total receipts cannot even cover our mandatory spending, entitlement reform would seem to be an obvious necessity. Yet only one house of one branch of the federal government has thus far shown any real signs of being able to see the obvious.--weeklystandard.com

* 3/16/11--UPDATE: The House voted Thursday to prohibit federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. The vote was 228-192, with one voting present. The Republican leadership will bring a bill to the floor on Thursday to permanently prohibit federal funding of National Public Radio (NPR). The bill comes one week after NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller resigned, in the wake of her fundraiser being caught on video defaming the Tea Party, and five months after Schiller's controversial firing of Juan Williams.--humanevents.com

* 3/18/11--The EPA's efforts to hijack the government suffered a setback this week after the GOP drew a long-awaited line in the sand. On Monday, the House Energy and Commerce Commission began debating a bill that would prevent the EPA from circumventing the legislative process, at least in regards to carbon. The Clear Air Act, passed in the 1970s and amended in the 1990s, did not include carbon as a "pollutant." Shortly after Obama took office, however, the EPA used administrative hairsplitting to apply the Act to carbon, which allegedly gave them the authority to enact regulations that Congress purposefully denied it in the law. Carbon, coincidentally, is the alleged culprit in manmade climate change and the rationale for cap-n-tax. Democrats on the Committee expressed their outrage by forcing the Republican members to vote on the legitimacy of the EPA's climate change findings; namely, that "warming of the climate change is unequivocal" and that human emissions are the "root cause." The Republicans refused to cave and defeated both measures, as well as another declaring the public health to be at risk. House Republicans aren't the only ones fighting the EPA's tyranny, either. Rust belt Democrat Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) and Jay Rockefeller (WV) have both spoken out against the EPA. Rockefeller has even proposed a two-year regulations ban. Most important, however, was a statement from Sen. John Dingell (D-MI), who co-authored the Clean Air Act. He clarified that it was never intended to apply to the climate. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson accused legislators of being out of their depth, scientifically speaking. But what she doesn't seem to understand is that whether or not one believes in the validity of climate change science, it takes a backseat to the Constitution. On that subject, it's Ms. Jackson who's out of her depth.--Patriot Post Digest

* 3/23/11--Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign. A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S. The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said. Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination. U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution. But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'. President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO. But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe. Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean. --dailymail.co.uk

* 3/23/11--This week, the Congressional Budget Office came out with new figures showing President Obama’s budget projections are off by over $2 trillion. The unpredicted $2 trillion will have a substantial impact on the U.S., rapidly growing debt and deficit. The CBO now estimates that 10 years of deficits will add up to nearly $10 trillion under Obama’s proposal, and the even scarier number comes in 2021, when the debt would total 87 percent of GDP, totalling nearly $23 trillion in debt.--townhall.com

* 3/23/11--Today is the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. In just a year, the law known as ObamaCare has already severely crippled the nation's economy and health care system. Despite Obama's continued pride in the signature health care legislation, a new CNN poll shows that 58% of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care. The Republican House passed a repeal of ObamaCare in January, but the bill was blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Four House committees are now drafting a replacement bill for ObamaCare. The House also passed a bill defunding ObamaCare in March, which was also blocked by the Senate Democrats. Republican leaders say that they will be defunding the health care law through the appropriations process this year.--humanevents.com

* 3/25/11--Only 17 percent of Americans see President Obama as a "strong and decisive" commander in chief, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the US-led coalition began bombing Libya. While 48 percent described Obama as "cautious and consultative," 36 percent called him "indecisive and dithering." --NY Post

* 3/25/11--Dane County, Wisconsin, Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi put her stamp on the delaying tactic started by Secretary of State Doug LaFollette when he opted to take the full 10 days to publish the state's new labor law. By placing an injunction on LaFollette's publishing the law, Judge Sumi provided yet more time for local governments and unions to "improve" new contract terms. Compounding the problem, Judge Sumi is conveniently on vacation through March 28. The injunction was issued at the request of a Dane County (which includes the city of Madison) district attorney who claimed the passage of the legislation was done at the expense of the state's open meetings law. However, there are two options for getting the law published: Lawmakers can re-enact the bill, or the state Supreme Court can overrule Judge Sumi. In any case, the proceedings continue to prove that Democrats will spare no expense to protect their own.--Patriot Post Digest

* 3/25/11--Consistent with his socialist, we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none of these have mattered in the past, why should they now? After all, in the mind of Obama -- or "Our Son, His Excellency" as his erstwhile pal Moammar Gadhafi called him recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional authority and sovereignty. To be sure, a long list of reasons support America's desire to oust Gadhafi and his regime, especially his role in state-sponsored terrorism. It was Gadhafi that ordered the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270, most of whom were Americans. That said, a number of countervailing arguments counsel against intervening in Libya's civil war with this, as Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes euphemistically put it, "kinetic military action." This description was later revised by Press Secretary Jay Carney to "time-limited, scope-limited" military action. That clears things up. For one, it is a civil war. U.S. policy -- at least ostensibly -- has been to refrain from engaging in conflicts where U.S. vital national interests are not at stake. Whatever interests the U.S. has in Libya, the term "vital" certainly does not apply. Second, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. neither seeks nor is granted authority from a supra-national organization such as the UN to use American instruments of national power, including military force. Such authority must vest from within, and in the U.S. that mechanism is the Constitution. While the president has both the authority and duty to use force in protection of the United States from an actual or imminent attack, that is the extent of his unilateral authority. Congress alone has the authority to approve the use of military force in all other circumstances as it did in the wake of 9/11. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush specifically approached Congress, asked for and was granted a resolution authorizing the use of military force. His successor -- not so much. Next, we have no idea whether the regime that replaces Gadhafi (if that happens) will actually be a change for the better. While the words "democracy" and "freedom" are bandied about indiscriminately, no one knows what Libya will look like post-Gadhafi. In fact, the rebels are self-described Islamic "holy warriors" who have at least the verbal backing of al-Qa'ida. This fact alone should advocate for restraint. Moreover, as America nears the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we should pause to reflect upon the fact that our nation has been at war continuously for almost a decade. Should we -- or can we even afford to -- embark on a third commitment of manpower and resources, much less one that is undefined and open-ended? Supposedly, no "boots on the ground" were to be committed, but as we go to press 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit are stationed just off the Libyan coast. In the first few days of this conflict alone, we have already lost a plane and spent hundreds of Tomahawk missiles -- are we prepared to commit to this effort to the point that we're willing to sacrifice American lives as well? In 2007, both Barack Obama and his levelheaded sidekick Joe Biden believed that the president's authority to use military force is limited to repelling an imminent or ongoing attack on the U.S., and that Congress alone has the authority to authorize the use of military force in all other circumstances. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," said Barack Obama then. Likewise, Joe Biden chimed in, "I made it clear to the president that if he takes this nation to war without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact." These claims were made when they were "Candidate Obama" and "Senator Biden," respectively -- that is, before either decided that their heartfelt words on the campaign trail or a TV talk show were never meant to be applied to themselves at some future point. Finally, it's worth highlighting how utterly disagreeable is the military operation label "Odyssey Dawn." An odyssey is a very long, convoluted saga -- not an event wrapped up in a few days, as this effort has been promoted, thus far. We're hoping that the Pentagon has a good sense of humor and irony. Otherwise and unwittingly, it may have aptly coined the beginning of yet another endless military journey. It might be nice to rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi. But before we commit American lives and resources toward doing so, shouldn't we first pause to ask the question: At what cost?--Patriot Post Digest

* 3/25/11--U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush appointee, decided in 2009 that several senior citizens could reject Medicare benefits in favor of private health care and still keep their Social Security benefits. She found that Clinton-era rules forcing seniors who withdrew from Medicare Part A to forfeit their Social Security checks were not sufficient for the Obama administration to continue using them. She wrote that "neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare." Yet this week, Collyer revisited her ruling and dismissed the case. She now argues, "The only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare Part A at age 65 is to forego the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security Retirement benefits." In other words, according to Judge Collyer, to be "entitled" to a government benefit, one is obliged to accept it. The plaintiffs' attorney, Kent Masterson Brown, explains why this could be problematic: "Anyone concerned with what will happen when the bureaucrats start writing the thousands of pages of rules that will govern" ObamaCare can look at this ruling as proof. "Nothing will be optional." As we have pointed out, however, ObamaCare isn't about health care at all -- it's about government power. To paraphrase Gerald Ford, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to force you to accept even what you don't want."--Patriot Post Digest

* 3/25/11--Joseph Mason, a Louisiana State University professor, testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that an estimated 13,000 Gulf region jobs have been lost due to Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium. Nationwide, Mason says that number is 19,000, and that total lost wages are $1.1 billion and lost tax revenue is $350 million. Realizing this enormous problem, Obama gave some reassurance this week, saying, "We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers." Oh, wait. He said that while in Brazil. Never mind the seven-year offshore drilling ban on U.S. east and west coasts, or on Alaska's continental shelf, or the de facto moratorium in the Gulf. Obama wants to help Brazil develop offshore oil so that the U.S. can buy it. Why? He explained, "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours." Obama is in essence saying that because we can't cover all of our oil needs, we shouldn't try to cover some of them. That said, the administration did approve the first four deepwater permits for Gulf drilling after last April's Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- and issued a highly touted press release to ensure people knew. It took lawsuits and contempt-of-court rulings to get there, but hey, progress is progress. As Jim Noe of the pro-drilling Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition observes, issuing permits "used to be a day-to-day affair, not a day that deserves a press release." All the while, we're making progress toward the administration's goal of more expensive gas.--Patriot Post Digest

* 3/30/11--President Barack Obama's approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did. The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent – a record low – in the poll released Wednesday. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent. The downward shift may in part be the result of dissatisfaction over U.S involvement in Libya, with 47 percent of those surveyed saying they oppose it. By a margin of 58 percent to 29 percent, registered voters said that Obama has not clearly stated U.S. goals for the mission. The poll as conducted March 22-28 and surveyed 2,069 registered voters. The error margin is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.--politico.com

* 3/30/11--President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday. The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool. This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room. “Our understanding going into the meeting was that it would have a pool photographer and a print reporter, and it turned out to be a private meeting,” Bass told POLITICO.--politico.com

* 3/31/11--FRANKFURT, March 31 (Reuters) - After following the Federal Reserve's lead for over a decade, the European Central Bank is poised to launch a series of interest rate hikes before the U.S. central bank for the first time in the ECB's history. The change from the traditional pattern reflects the ECB's greater preoccupation with inflation pressures, as well as its higher level of discomfort with the emergency bond-buying programmes run by central banks. But the "decoupling" of ECB and Fed policies is also the result of an historic shift in the global economy: the increased influence that Asia, rather than the United States, is having on the euro zone's economy. "I think we are in a new world where global interest rate cycles are not initiated by the Fed," said Jens Sondergaard, senior European economist at Nomura.