Questions and Observations

That’s certainly been one of the major reasons that candidate and then President Obama has cited for closing the facility. But the Weekly Standard did an analysis of some 34 al Qaeda messages and found that Guantanamo was barely mentioned, and when it was, it was at worst a neutral topic.

So why is this important enough to talk about. Because of the emphasis Obama places on that excuse to close the facility in the face of facts that just don’t support the premise. Here’s what he recently said [emphasis added]:

Obviously, we haven’t gotten it closed. And let me just step back and explain that the reason for wanting to close Guantanamo was because my number one priority is keeping the American people safe.

One of the most powerful tools we have to keep the American people safe is not providing al Qaeda and jihadists recruiting tools for fledgling terrorists. And Guantanamo is probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations. And we see it in the websites that they put up. We see it in the messages that they’re delivering.

But when we turn to the actual 34 messages that discuss recruiting, that isn’t at all the case.  Here are the results of key word searches in those messages:

Guantanamo is mentioned a mere 7 times in the 34 messages we reviewed. (Again, all 7 of those references appear in just 3 of the 34 messages.)

By way of comparison, all of the following keywords are mentioned far more frequently: Israel/Israeli/Israelis (98 mentions), Jew/Jews (129), Zionist(s) (94), Palestine/Palestinian (200), Gaza (131), and Crusader(s) (322). (Note: Zionist is often paired with Crusader in al Qaeda’s rhetoric.)

Naturally, al Qaeda’s leaders also focus on the wars in Afghanistan (333 mentions) and Iraq (157). Pakistan (331), which is home to the jihadist hydra, is featured prominently, too. Al Qaeda has designs on each of these three nations and implores willing recruits to fight America and her allies there. Keywords related to other jihadist hotspots also feature more prominently than Gitmo, including Somalia (67 mentions), Yemen (18) and Chechnya (15).  

In fact the Weekly Standard states uncategorically that there is no evidence in those 34 messages that Gitmo is a recruiting tool, much less “probably the number one recruitment tool” used by al Qaeda.

So, what are they about?  The usual stuff:

Instead, al Qaeda’s leaders repeatedly focus on a narrative that has dominated their propaganda for the better part of two decades. According to bin Laden, Zawahiri, and other al Qaeda chieftains, there is a Zionist-Crusader conspiracy against Muslims. Relying on this deeply paranoid and conspiratorial worldview, al Qaeda routinely calls upon Muslims to take up arms against Jews and Christians, as well as any Muslims rulers who refuse to fight this imaginary coalition.

This theme forms the backbone of al Qaeda’s messaging – not Guantanamo.

So what’s going on with Gitmo?  The usual spin designed to make the place seem much worse than it is with an eye on closing it for some less than pragmatic reason (I mention that because Obama is supposed to be such a pragmatist).  The messages reviewed by the WS are all of those which are known to have been delivered since January 2009.  Obviously, Gitmo has a small and barely noticeable effect on anything al Qaeda does.  Touting it as “probably the number one recruitment tool” of al Qaeda is false and misleading.   It implies closing Guantanamo will hurt such recruiting.  Obviously that’s just not the case. 

Nope, this is about a silly campaign promise made with little knowledge or information about the enemy we’re fighting or what is being used to recruit jihadists into the organization.  It would be one thing coming from some blogger out in North Dakota.  It’s another to hear it said by the man who is charged with our national security.  It doesn’t give one much of a warm fuzzy.

~McQ

While Democrats hail this Congressional session as a huge success (again, it really depends on how you define “success” doesn’t it?), there’s one “accomplishment” they’ll be trying to ignore.  Doug Mataconis gives us the numbers:

According to the United States Treasury, the National Debt on that day was $8,670,596,242,973.04. As of December 24th, it was $13,866,145,290,604.69. That’s $5,195,549,047,631.65 in new deficit spending in over just under four years.

Nice, huh?

Over 5 trillion dollars.  Roll that around on your tongue – 5 trillion in new debt in 4 years.  That’s more debt added than any other Congress in the history of our country and more than all of the first 100 combined.

The previous record holding Congress?  The 110th at $1.92 trillion, also a Democratic Congress presided over by Pelosi.  Oh and remember Ms. Pelosi’s pledge (the other one, not the “most ethical” Congress in history pledge) as she took the office of Speaker of the House?

“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”

Another in a long line of political lies.  And yes, I consider this a lie since Pelosi and gang had absolutely no intention of following that pledge – none.  It was a pure and unadulterated falsehood.  Two Congressional sessions and 5 trillion dollars later, it’s clear how much of a falsehood it really was.

The cost?  Now will cost every man, woman and child in America is on the hook for $44,886.57 each. 

Meanwhile Obama, et. al, are touting this as the “Season of Progress”.

Progress toward the poor house maybe.

The GOP better get to work on day one, because we can’t afford the Democrats.  They’ve had their run and look at the mountain of debt they’ve accumulated.

Thanks a trillion, Madam Speaker.

~McQ

Daniel Mitchell provides a bit of ground truth that we’ve recently seen demonstrated via the census numbers:

The world is a laboratory and different nations are public policy experiments. Not surprisingly, the evidence from these experiments is that nations with more freedom tend to grow faster and enjoy more prosperity. Nations with big governments, by contrast, are more likely to suffer from stagnation. The same thing happens inside the United States. The 50 states are experiments, and they generate considerable data showing that small government states enjoy better economic performance. But because migration between states is so easy (whereas migration between nations is more complicated), we also get very good evidence based on people “voting with their feet.” Taxation and jobs are two big factors that drive this process.

Seats were gained by two types of states – those with "right to work" laws and states without income tax. The states with relatively low income taxes also gained.

Says Michael Barone:

…growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England. Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

For the “we have the lowest taxes in the world” bunch that continue to claim our taxes should be even higher, these numbers should drive the point home.  Americans are indeed voting with their feet and they’re fleeing to states that encourage vs. discourage businesses (and thus the creation of jobs) and states which don’t tax the income of job holders.  Unsurprisingly those states are mostly found in the South where free markets and free people are concepts that aren’t esoteric thought exercises, but something which those that live there both desire and demand.

Certainly that doesn’t mean the South is perfect by any means.  It’s just much better than the rest of the country when it comes to those two things that people hold to be important – enough so that they’re moving there in record numbers to take advantage of the business climate.  Texas, for instance, picked up 4 House seats.  Florida 2.  The rest of the South, except Louisiana (the Katrina effect), picked up one each.

This is another indicator of why I see Democrats and their agenda having problems in 2012.  That message hasn’t yet sunk in.  Whether it will or not, remains to be seen.  But to this point, they’re still a “big government” party.  Republicans seem, at least on the surface, to understand what the voters said the last election.  Spine, however, is an ever fleeting commodity in Washington, and if they – as they usually do – buy into this “need” for “bipartisanship”, then they’re fools and they’ll fail.  Bipartisanship is vastly oversold.  If ever the GOP played hardball, now is the time.

Of course, the other side of that is if the GOP succeeds in some small way and convince President Obama to sign those victories into law, Obama will obviously try to claim he’s the reason it became a law.  A little reflective glory.  Spin cycles will be on overdrive and the GOP must be as transparent as possible during this next Congressional period so any such occurrence will reflect favorably on them and not the President.

Let’s be upfront here – we need Obama playing golf permanently in 2013.

Anyway, the demographics of the new census and the why and wherefores of the population shift were just too interesting to pass off.  Daniel Mitchell then asks the most salient of questions in conclusion:

This leaves us with one perplexing question. If we know that pro-market policies work for states, why does the crowd in Washington push for more statism?

The one word we all know and loath, of course – power.

~McQ

Well after a couple day hiatus, I’m ready to go back at it. Sometimes you just have to take a couple of days off to clear the mind, enjoy the peace and joy of the Christmas season and reflect on the 2 inches of snow in you yard on Christmas day (first in at least many decades) and curse global warming. Heh.

Drove to Memphis and back yesterday – no not just to do it – dropped the wife off with her sisters. Snow flurries all the way through Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. Roads closed due to ice near B’ham. Had to reroute which cost some time. When I came back through they’d cleared it all out.

Cold as hell. It only got above freezing by a couple of degrees all day, but the wind – brrr.

Anyway, let’s sit back and contemplate the upcoming year politically, shall we? As it turns out, this one hasn’t been the best one for Democrats (although they’re now trying to claim it was outstanding due to the lame duck Congress). "Shellacked" in November the Democrats yield their majority in the House. That means that Republicans there will be writing next year’s budget (due around March) and Rep. Paul Ryan will be the man to watch since he now heads the House’s budget committee.

Question: will Republicans put forward a budget heavy on spending cuts or will they skirt the issue? My sense is that Ryan is going to put out an aggressive budget with significant cuts and the GOP is going to ask everyone to "make sacrifices" as they attempt to wean us from some of our dependency on government and other people’s money.

Of course I could be wrong and the Old Bulls could decide that controversy isn’t the way they want to go with 2012 looming – but that would be a mistake in my estimation.

Meanwhile it is reported that Obama is set to "shuffle his staff". Well, given the present one, it’s hard to imagine he could do worse with the shuffle. In many cases he’s been ill served by the present staff. That’s not to say he hasn’t made plenty of unforced errors himself, but these first two years have been marked by an aura of amateurism and a weaker president.

The first personnel change inside the White House is the arrival of David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign. For the last two years, Mr. Plouffe has been one of the president’s closest outside confidants, but he is set to replace Mr. Axelrod as his chief political adviser, with a broad portfolio.

Frankly, I think Axlerod has been out of his depth in the White House. He was most at home campaigning/running a campaign, but never seemed to understand that the campaigning stops on Jan. 20th of the following year if you candidate wins. I’m not sure Plouffe will be much of an improvement.

At the final cabinet meeting of the year, on Dec. 8, the president renewed his request that if any members intended to step down, they needed to signal their intentions. White House officials said they believed that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is the only cabinet member who definitely plans to leave next year, although one other departure is possible.

This is one I have no idea about who the replacement will be.  Many names have been bandied about, but this is a very critical position.  My guess is Joe Biden is going to try to exert some influence here and we most likely are not going to be happy with the choice – nor is the military.

One departure that many will welcome – if it happens – is Bagdad Bob Gibson:

But at the midpoint of his term, several aides are considering new opportunities, including the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs will probably either become a senior adviser to the president or work outside the White House, defending Mr. Obama on television and beginning to define the field of 2012 Republican presidential candidates. The leading contenders for his job are Jay Carney, a spokesman for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and Bill Burton, a deputy press secretary.

Now Gibson has been no worse than some of the worst press secretaries I’ve witnessed over the year, but there’s something about his manner that just irritates beyond the usual irritation level.  Certainly I wouldn’t want to have that job in any circumstance, but if it is your job, you should at least bring some level of integrity to it, and I’ve not seen that at all during Gibson’s tenure.  I have no idea if the 2 possible contenders would be better than Gibson in that area (maybe the job preclude integrity) but it would be nice to see if they would.,

Something as predictable as the dawn is going on within the administration as well:

Two months before the midterm elections, even before it became clear that Democrats would lose their Congressional majority, the president ordered a review of how the White House operated and how it could be modernized. The mission of the Reorganization Plan, as it is called at the White House, expanded after the sweeping Republican victory.

Pete Rouse, now the interim White House chief of staff, was already working on the plan in October when Rahm Emanuel stepped down as chief of staff to run for mayor of Chicago. The process has been a highly guarded secret even inside the White House, with Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser; Robert F. Bauer, the general counsel; and Mr. Axelrod also providing guidance.

The president was frustrated by the bureaucracy of the administration, aides said, and asked Mr. Rouse to recommend ways to improve internal communication and efficiency.

Yes, it must have been the organization of the administration that contributed to the “Republican victory” or, at least, the inability to ameliorate the losses.  In fact, of course, it had little to do with the organization or the message.  Instead it had to do with pushing an unpopular agenda at a time with the focus should have been on other things – jobs and the economy.  It is one of the reasons that even while Democrats celebrate the number of “accomplishments” rendered by the 111th Congress their approval rate remains low.  It isn’t about the “number” but the desirability of the accomplishments that count.  Voters signaled most emphatically they were dissatisfied with that Congress’ “accomplishments” in a most damning way in November.

Of course a true bureaucrats answer to such a defeat is to tinker with the bureaucracy looking for ways to “improve internal communication and efficiency” even while improvements in both would be irrelevant to the real reason for they administration’s perceived failures the previous two years.

And, a new strategy is emerging which smacks of what?  In a word, campaigning:

Mr. Obama intends not only to extend a hand to Republicans but also to begin detaching himself more from Congress and spending more time making his case directly to the American people.

He may find it harder to “detach” himself from Congress than he thinks, although if successful he might gain a few approval points.  But if history is any teacher, the “detachment” will be an acrimonious one with the usual attempt at blame shifting common to the Obama presidency to this point.  And the people have pointedly said any number of times that they’re tired of the president trying to blame everyone else for his problems.

And how about an imperial presidency?  I have to wonder if the rabid left, who got so exercised about George Bush’s use of executive orders will find it within themselves to level the same criticism at Obama?

“In a world of divided government, getting things done requires a mix of compromise and confrontation,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “What are the things you can do without Congress? In some cases, that involves executive orders, but it also involves using the bully pulpit of the presidency to make a political argument about the direction of the country.”

Interestingly the man who was touted as the 2nd “great communicator” has been singularly ineffective in his first two years of effectively using the bully pulpit the presidency provides.  Will he rally his supporters in the next 2 years with its use?  Or will he remain the same ineffective communicator he’s been these past two years?  Have the American people finally seen through this guy and his penchant for high sounding rhetoric?  Can they again be seduced into voting for a guy who many (among those who voted for him) have come to consider an empty suit?

Stay tuned for 2011.  It will indeed be an interesting year.

~McQ

Light blogging for the next few days.  This time of the year is very light in blog readership anyway, as everyone turns to family during the Christmas season.  And frankly, I need a break from the clowns in DC.

Speaking of family though, two of my nieces have been busy this year.  A little bragging is called for. 

One, Delanna Studi, finished up a nationwide tour with the Broadway show, “August in Osage County”. 

And another, Amy Weaver, is featured in a Sears commercial and, as you’ll see, does an outstanding job.    Remember: cranberries:

~McQ

A favored myth of the warmist alarmist is we’re killing off the polar bears through AGW by melting their habitat.

Not so fast says the Obama administration:

The Obama administration is sticking with a George W. Bush-era decision to deny polar bears endangered species status. In a court filing Wednesday, the Fish and Wildlife Service defended the previous administration’s decision to give the polar bear the less-protective “threatened” species designation, a move that will frustrate environmentalists who hoped for stronger protections under the Endangered Species Act.

One of the more obvious things most should understand, at least by now, is getting an animal on the endangered list isn’t so much about the animal is about power. All sorts of regulatory restrictions kick in with such a designation.

And the enviros get to help enforce them. Go out on Ft. Bragg NC’s maneuver areas and marvel at the red-cockaded woodpecker’s power – and the the enviro monitors who sit out in the habitat area and ensure soldiers don’t invade the woodpecker’s space.

The same sort of power would accrue the enviros with the placement of the polar bear on the endangered list.

FWS Director Rowan Gould said the 2008 "threatened" listing was made "following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the ESA." At the time, the service determined the bears weren’t danger of extinction, so did not warrant the “endangered” status.

The bears were listed as "threatened" because they face serious threats from projected decline in its sea ice habitat due to global warming would result in them likely being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.

Typical of the "science" used by the alarmists is this:

In a news release issued after its conference last July, the PBSG concluded that only one of 19 total polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Data was insufficient to determine numbers for the remaining seven subpopulations. The group estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)

So the polar bear population has more than doubled from the high 1950′s estimate yet they’re "endangered" according to some? This little caveat is also listed:

However, the PBSG quickly acknowledged that “the mixed quality of information on the different subpopulations means there is much room for error in establishing” the numbers, and “the potential for error, given the ongoing and projected changes in habitats and other potential stresses, is cause for concern.”

Or said another way, "we don’t know what the real polar bear population is but it must be in decline and, btw, our projected decline is based on those stellar climate change models that have been so accurate to this point". Regardless, it is hard to sell endangered species when the species has had a 100% plus growth in 50 years (with harvesting).

The “science?”

Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.

“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.

Want to make a bet on who is right?

Bottom line: “Science” in the name of a political agenda is no science at all.  And as more information continues to come out, it appears that the “science” of AGW isn’t based in science so much as it is the accrual of power and control to those who would love to dictate how you must live – for the planet, of course.

~McQ

Well of course they do – it gives power to the minority and prevents them from running roughshod over that minority as they attempt to push their agenda through the Senate (as is pretty much done in the House).  That said, I don’t have a problem with this:

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

“There need to be changes to the rules to allow filibusters to be conducted by people who actually want to block legislation instead of people being able to quietly say ‘I object’ and go home,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

This year, McCaskill lined up backing from more than two-thirds of senators for elimination of secret holds, which allow a senator to block action on a bill or nomination anonymously. She said that Democrats will also push plans to force senators who place holds to do it publicly.

I think that "secret holds" are anathema to open government. If a Senator objects, he or she should take ownership of that objection and have to do so publicly. That’ll take care of some of the petty nonsense that is fairly routine in those sorts of holds. But:

Adding to the momentum for change, say proponents, is a push by Udall to seek a simple majority vote on changing Senate rules at the start of the session, rather than a two-thirds majority, that is gaining steam. Such a move could come at the start of next Congress, shortly after the Senate returns on January 5th.

Uh, no. Supermajority means you have to convince the minority of the efficacy of the changes. One of the reason it is so important to have the minority retain its power was illustrated in the defeat of the 1.2 trillion dollar pork package called the "Omnibus spending bill". The minority was able to kill it. I understand that really has no bearing on an internal rule change to go to a simple majority vote to make rule changes, but as with all things, that means Democrats wouldn’t have to have a single minority vote to change the rules.

I say "no way". One of the most powerful and moderating things about the Senate is it almost forces negotiation with the minority before it can accomplish anything. I wonder if the "No Labels" crew will be coming out with a statement saying "keep the rules that protect the minority in the Senate".  Yeah, I doubt it too.

Filibuster reform in the way McCaskill is pushing for (no more secret holds) is a good thing I think.  The time change to less than 30 hours on the motion to proceed is no big deal.   Changing the rule on the number of votes necessary to change the rules – i.e. go from a supermajority to a simple majority – is not a good thing and should be rejected.

~McQ

The Dems are jumping around and engaging in a bit of back-slapping as they declare the 111th Congress a "do something" Congress. The key third word is "to" or "for". I vote for "to", as in they’ve done something to all of us we aren’t going to like or already don’t like (*cough* health care *cough*).

So while they dance around the maypole…

President Obama led his party Wednesday in celebrating the repeal of "Don’t ask, don’t tell," one of the several accomplishments to come during the unusually busy lame-duck session. The Senate is set to ratify the New START Treaty on Wednesday afternoon, and passed a defense authorization bill by unanimous consent in the Senate on Wednesday morning. Also up for possible passage Wednesday is legislation to fund healthcare for 9/11 first responders.

"We’ve had a very, very productive few weeks after this election. We took responsibility to do the things that needed to be done," Hoyer told liberal talker Bill Press on his radio show.

… I have only two questions to ask of this supposed wonderful Congress after the mid-terms.

Jobs?

Economy?

~McQ

Well, of course anything can be declared a “civil right”.  All it takes is using the force of government via law or bureaucratic fiat (FCC imposes new rules on internet) to make something into that.  But any basic understanding of the word “right” does not include something which depends on the labor, money, services or assets of a 2nd party for its fulfillment.  Health care is not a “right”, civil or otherwise, because in order to fulfill it, one must coerce a 2nd party provider to give the services necessary whether they want to or not.

So is the internet a “civil right”?  Depends on who you ask – for the entitlement crowd, the answer is “yes”:

"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil-rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and No. 3 House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."

Heck, the same argument could be made for any number of things – a cell phone, for instance.  Any number of people I’m sure would argue that a cell phone and unlimited access to a cellular phone network has become a “basic necessity”.   Of course we’re sliding down that slippery slope at an amazing rate of speed.

And if internet access is a “basic need”, a “civil right”, what about the tools necessary to access it?  An account with an internet provider and a computer?  Software?  Michelle Malkin remarks:

Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.

And, of course that “not so noble political goal” is more government control which, of course, translates into more power accrued and more control of every aspect of your life.  Malkin again:

For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it’s all about control. It’s always about control.

Precisely – and they’ll use any trick in the book to enlarge it.  And cloaking it in the guise of a “civil right” simply points out, again, how blatantly transparent  they’ve gotten in their quest.  This isn’t about “rights” – this is about power and intrusion.

~McQ

We’ve all been wondering how it would shake out. Jamie Dupree (if you’re not following him in Twitter, you should) just tweeted:

BOTTOM LINE – New York & Ohio lose 2 seats; IA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MO, NJ and PA lose one House seat.

Interesting stuff. Those are the losers. Who picks them up?

GA picks up one as does SC, AZ, UT, NV and WA. FL picks up 2 and TX picks up 4.

So … the south picks up 7 seats (-1 in LA, remember?), the west 4 and the northeast and midwest lose 11.

Suddenly we’ve got a little different ballgame in 2012. Why?

Don’t forget, the change in House seats also changes Electoral Votes for President in 2012.

That’s why.

~McQ