Obama's foreign policy in pictures

President Obama promised his foreign policy would be less "arrogant" than George W. Bush's. Several recent pictures illustrate that he has kept part of his promise: he is only arrogant to our allies.

This picture shows President Obama shaking his finger at Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister. I don't know what President Obama was bloviating about, but Secretary Clinton recently criticized the Prime Minister for not inviting Inuits to a conference regarding Arctic resources and for not including sufficient funding for abortions in its foreign aid. The Obama administration has also sternly lectured Israel about construction projects in Jerusalem and threatened the Honduran government for thwarting Manuel Zelaya's attempt to install himself as President for life.

On the other hand, if you are a foreign monarch or dictator, Obama will reflexively bow to you -- groveling is optional.

The late historian Bernard Lewis warned against a foreign policy that made us “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” Unfortunately, President Obama seems oblivious to that danger.

An interesting solar power project

The New York Times recently had an article about a solar power project underway in Florida. Planetgore at National Review has a link to the article.

Florida Power and Light currently operates a natural gas-powered electrical plant in Indiantown, Florida. It occupies 15 acres of land and generates 3800 kWh of electricity. It is building a solar-powered addition that will occupy 500 acres of former swampland and will generate 75 kWh electricity at its peak-- which is only one third of the time and, of course, not at night. According to the Times, the swampland formerly teemed with a otters and wild hogs (and, I strongly suspect, birds).

The cost of this addition is $476 million. When completed, it will be the second-largest solar plant in the world. The solar powered-project uses concave mirrors to focus sunlight to heat oil contained in tubes, which in turn is used to generate steam to power a turbine that generates electricity.

A simple mathematical calculation reveals that over 25,000 acres (approximately 12.5 square miles) of solar collectors would be required to generate the same 3800 kWh of electricity the existing natural gas plant generates using only 15 acres of land. And the solar plant would still require a conventionally-powered plant to provide electricity at night and on cloudy days.

And Obama and his Secretary of Energy think this is our energy future?

Note to environmentalists: another term for swampland is "wetlands."

The unraveling of the case for anthropogenic global warming

I have long been a skeptic regarding claims that man's activities are causing the planet to significantly heat up. The proponents of this theory first tell us that the planet's climate is incredibly complex. Then, seemingly in the next breath, they claim that all this complexity boils down to a simple (simplistic?) equation: higher levels of carbon dioxide equal higher temperatures. Really?

Maybe not. It seems that every week brings new revelations undermining the case for AGW. The tipping point was probably the release of the East Anglia documents -- which include, in addition to the damning e-mails, working files that cast doubt on the data that purportedly support the warm-mongers' dire predictions.

The warm-mongers also stridently insist that the decade-long cooling period we have just witnessed is a temporary aberation. But their computer models didn't predict it and can't explain it, so how do they know?

Now we learn that the Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 as the UN's IPCC predicted, and that some of the IPCC's supposedly-peer-reviewed claims were based on an article published in a mountain climbing magazine and on an unpublished student dissertation that in turn relied on "anecdotal" evidence. Curiouser and curiouser.

Even mainstream politicians are calling for the resignation of the head of the IPCC -- he is a railway engineer, not a climatologist. And Al Gore steadfastly refuses to debate the merits of his claims with real scientists.

If the case for AGW collapses, so does the entire rationale for the President's cap-and-trade scheme, which he himself admits would "necessarily" cause electricity prices to skyrocket and would bankrupt anyone who built a coal-powered electricity plant (we get over half of our electricity from coal-fired plants).

It is definitely time to hit the reset button on this entire issue.

Victor Davis Hanson on President Obama and the principles of U.S. foreign policy

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and military historian. His October 28 article on the Wall Street Journal's online edition compares the foreign-policy mess that Harry Truman inherited upon unexpectedly being thrust into the presidency with that faced today by President Obama (Truman faced a far worse situation than does Obama). VDH's assessment is that Truman knew less about foreign-policy but learned faster than anyone could have reasonably expected.

The question VDH asks is: "Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable—best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America's historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors?

"Or will a sermonizing Mr. Obama follow the aberrant Democratic path of the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter: finger-wagging at allies, appeasing enemies, publicly faulting his less than perfect predecessors, and hectoring the American people to evolve beyond their supposed prejudices?"

No one knows the answer. But as VDH points out: "America awaits this president's choice. The world safety hinges upon it."

We live in hope.

Is Obama the new Nixon?

In my September 29 post, I discussed a few of the campaign promises that President Obama has already broken, namely promises of transparency in his administration, including his promise to post the log of White House visitors on the Web. As I noted then, President Obama could keep these promises simply with a stroke of a pen (perhaps I should have said with the click of a mouse).

In fact, President Obama is downright Nixonian in his efforts to stonewall both the public and the media--see Quin Hillyer's excellent op-ed on this subject in today's Washington Times:

"The administration repeatedly has stiff-armed Congress, the media, outside organizations and even a prestigious independent government commission. It has raised "none of your business" from an adolescent rejoinder to a public policy - to keep the public in the dark."

Why is President Obama flouting his promises of transparency? Apparently to enable the kind of pay-to-play shenanigans that are an integral part of the "Chicago way." Again, according to the Washington Times:

"During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

"High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times."

Now I am not shocked, shocked to learn that politicking is going on at the White House. But the level of hypocracy is rather breathtaking.

Recent developments in Obamaland

This week and we have a trifecta: three excellent columns about recent events in the Obama White House. The first is by Mark Steyn. His reference to "Mao Ze Dunn" is priceless.

Next, Charles Krauthammer weighs in with a column on the Fox Wars.

Finally, Victor Davis Hanson has a column about the rapidly-changing perceptions of, and dwindling support for, our new President (here).

One salient thought occurred to me even before reading these articles: President Obama has the will to wage an unrelenting war against Fox News, but not against the Islamic Jihadists in Afghanistan.

What is wrong with this picture?

The facts about health coverage in America

Senator Moynihan once famously observed that people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Given the plethora of numbers being strewn about as to the number of Americans unable to get health coverage, Senator Moynihan must be spinning in his grave.

President Obama, himself, has claimed both that 45 million Americans and 30 million Americans are uninsured. That is quite a spread, especially coming from a single source. A recent article sheds some much-needed light on this issue. Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing in the Washington Post (here), analyzed the Census Bureau's numbers and points out the following: while 46 million people are counted as uninsured, 9 million of those are not U.S. citizens. Moreover, the Census, itself, states that about 9 million people under report their coverage. So, according to Census data, 90% of Americans have health coverage.

Of the 28 million uninsured -- whom President Obama claims "cannot get coverage" -- 18% are between the ages of 18 and 34. For many of these young and healthy individuals, health insurance is a poor bargain that they simply choose to forego. Tellingly, almost half of the uninsured make more than $50,000 a year (more than a quarter make more than $75,000 a year). In short, 95% of Americans either have health coverage or could readily afford to purchase it if they chose to.

So President Obama's plan (he doesn't really have one, but, like him, we'll pretend he does) will cover the remaining 5% of Americans, right? Well, no. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 6% of Americans will remain uninsured even 10 years after the $1 trillion Senate Finance Committee bill is enacted into law (God forbid). So, according to the government's own statistics, Obama's proposed trillion dollar government takeover of our health care system will accomplish precisely nothing.

Let the debate begin.

President Obama 's non-strategy in Afghanistan

President Obama says we need a strategy in Afghanistan. Of course we do. But on March 27, he claimed to have forged a "comprehensive" strategy for Afghanistan after a thorough review that included consultations with the military, the leaders of various countries, and key members of Congress. He even appointed a new general to implement his new strategy. (See Charles Krauthammer's excellent Washington Post Article for more details.)

What changed? Nothing changed in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has not changed fundamentally for centuries. That is regrettable, but it hardly explains the President's decision to scrap a comprehensive strategy that he has only begun to implement.

What has changed is the the political landscape in the United States. Obama wanted the government takeover of health care to be completed before the August recess. That didn't happen, and his various schemes are becoming less popular by the week. And a cap and trade bill was supposed to have been passed before government-run healthcare. That bill is moribund. (And gays still can't serve openly in the military, and Guantánamo Bay is no closer to being closed.) In short, Obama is taking a lot of heat from the left, and committing the resources needed to implement a serious strategy in Afghanistan would only make matters worse.

Something had to give, and national security, to which Obama was never committed to begin with, was the obvious choice.

Obama at the United Nations

Peter Wehner has an excellent critique of President Obama's speech to the U.N.

A simple plan.

I cribbed the title of this post from Jonah Goldberg, although it dates back at least to Jonathan Swift.

The Democrats are playing a semantic shell game with healthcare "reform." Various Democrat administrators and legislators , including President Obama, keep assuring us that their proposed legislation will do this and won't do that. Meanwhile, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sibelius has the ultimate copout, insisting that "the bill" hasn't even been written yet.

What should we do? That's where the simple plan comes in. We won't know what's in the final legislation, if any, eventually passed by Congress. Of course, neither will most of the Senators or Congressman who vote on it. All we can do is absolutely insist that, whatever bill they pass, will apply equally to all federal employees, including the President and the rest of the executive branch and Senators and Congressmen and their staff.

Oklahoma Senator Coburn's Amendment #226 would require all members of Congress and their staff to enroll in the newly-required public health insurance plan. We should insist that any bill that is passed include this provision. For me, this is a deal breaker.

Obama 's drop a dime Hotline

And you thought the Patriot Act was an infringement of civil liberties. Now the Obama White House wants us to report "fishy" statements on the Internet regarding Obamacare. The snitch e-mail address is flag@Whitehouse.gov. This is literally Orwellian. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says that the White House is not keeping a record of the people snitched on, but how would he know?

In fact, according to this Fox News article, the White House may be required to keep a record of such communications. Under a different federal statute, it may be illegal to keep such records. Go figure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius assures(?) us weekly if not daily that the health-care bill is a work in progress. This week she chided people for criticizing Senator Arlen Specter for not having read the Senate version of the bill. Her "defense" of Specter was that the bill hasn't been written yet.

I have a question: if the legislation hasn't been written yet, and the drafts that do exist are continually being revised, what qualifies as a "fishy" statement about this shape-shifting chimera? And how can the President credibly give us "guarantees" as to what the eventual bill will or will not do?

Is this the new era of politics the President promised?

"He can run but he can't hide."

Joe Louis uttered the words in the title about Billy Conn before their fight, but they apply equally to President Obama, especially where health insurance "reform" is concerned. Very recently, a video recording of statements he made in 2003 has surfaced at Breitbart.tv. In the video, Obama states:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

White House flack, Linda Douglass, claims in a new video that these remarks were taken out of context. This is the favorite cop out of people who have been caught telling inconvenient truths.

If the White House is seriously claiming that President Obama would not like to see a single-payer health-care program with "everybody in, nobody out," it should provide the allegedly-missing context that will illuminate the true meaning of his statement.

Obama and the 'Noble Lie'

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article on today's National Review Online regarding Obama and the 'Noble Lie.' He really nails the President's
"style" of governing.

President Obama and the Supreme Court

President Obama has consistently made two assertions about the nature of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. The first is that, in 95% of the cases that come before the Court, the correct result is clear-cut, "slam dunks." The second is that, in the other 5% of the cases, those that involve difficult issues, the most important quality for a Justice is "empathy." The first assertion is grossly inaccurate. The second is incomprehensible. This post discusses the first assertion. A subsequent post will discuss the second.

The Supreme Court deals with cases involving an incredible range of federal issues: tax, patent, environmental, securities law, antitrust, etc. In addition, of course, the Court deals with Constitutional issues. If President Obama were correct that 95% of these cases are slam dunks, you would expect that 95% of its decisions would be unanimous or near-unanimous (8-1).


Even a casual observer of the Supreme Court,however, knows that unanimous opinions from the Court are almost as rare as hen's teeth. Alhough I have not crunched the numbers, nowhere near 95% of the Supreme Court's decisions are unanimous or near-unanimous. In fact I would wager that the percentage of unanimous or near-unanimous opinions handed down by the Court is much closer to 5% than 95%.

The Court's docket consists of review of decisions by Federal Courts of Appeals, and State Supreme Court rulings that involve federal constitutional issues. Often, the Court takes a case to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. If these cases were slam dunks, the Courts of Appeals would not have disagreed as to the correct result in the first place.

Cases raising constitutional issues necessarily involve the construction of general provisions,e.g. "unreasonable," "cruel and unusual," etc. Understandably, the Justices frequently disagree as to the correct interpretation of these general terms. On top of that, the Justices who espouse the doctrine of the "living Constitution" assert that modern societal values, both here and abroad, may properly be taken into account in construing be Constitution. Since the Justices do not even agree on the proper rule of construction, disagreements (in the form of both concurrences and dissents) are frequent.

In short, President Obama appears to have a blinkered view of the work done by the Supreme Court. Since he will shortly be nominating a new Justice to the Court, this lack of basic understanding is worrisome.

Obama's oratory

"Sheesh, the guy is Jimmy Carter."

Michael Wolff, of Vanity Fair, doesn't even care for President Obama's speeches.

The Unbearable Lightness of Obama

OK. He can deliver a great speech, at least when the teleprompter is on. He looks good--plug in Joe Biden's remarks from the Democrat primary. But can he govern? Does he even want to govern, as opposed to just being President, which is undeniably a cool gig? I would say the jury is still out, or would be, if he had gotten around to picking one.

Very soon, people are going to start taking him at his word when he says: "blame me."

Who is in charge of our government?

Apparently the British aren't the only ones unable to get the Treasury Department to answer their telephones. Representative Paul Kanjorski (D.), Chairman of the House Capital Markets Subcommittee, says that he knew about the AIG bonuses more than a month before they were issued. He further stated that, if Secretary Geithner claims that he only found out about the bonuses after they were issued, he should check with his telephone and mail departments. He repeatedly contacted Treasury about this issue for more than a month before the bonuses were awarded. The video is here.

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn wonders whether the teleprompter is running things at the White House, and, if so, why it isn't doing a better job.

Obama's first month in office

Does anyone really know what the blizzard of plans that Obama has put forward in his first month in office really entail, other than a massive increase in the size of government and government spending? I doubt it. Certainly not the legislators who have voted and will be voting on these various plans. I don't believe a single one of them read the full spending bill that just passed before voting on it.

This rush (panic really) to legislate is tragic, perhaps catastrophic. Nancy Pelosi's ludicrous claim that every month that passed without the passage of the spending bill would cause the loss of 500 million American jobs is emblematic of the lack of serious consideration these proposals have received.

The military says that speed kills. In the legislative arena, speed leads to the frantic passage of bills written by nameless staffers and passed by elected officials who don't even know what is in them. What we do know is that all of this, if passed, will cost a staggering amount. And President Obama's proposals to pay for all or even most of this new spending are voodoo economics on stilts. And it will be with this for a very long time, even if it turns out we don't like it.

Mark Steyn sums this up better than I can. He certainly does it more wittily.

Obama's first two weeks

Victor Davis Hanson has a pithy post summing up the first two weeks of the Obama administration. It's been a weird procession of self-promoters, tax cheats, and lobbyists. And, as VDH notes: "its only been two weeks." Even the adoring MSM will have to admit (at least privately) that it has not been an auspicious beginning.