Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan's 'Extremism'

Again, Greenwald's not my favorite, but he's one of the very few who's speaking truth to power on this administration's massive hypocrisy.

See, "John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination":

Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the" CIA.

This "victory" of forcing Brennan's withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden "engaged in a firefight" with Navy SEALS and had "used his wife as a human shield". Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen - targeting people without even knowing who they are - and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.

Continue reading (via Memeorandum).

Guns and the American Political Culture

As the Democrats get set to launch a "broad gun control agenda" in the new Congress, it bears remembering that President Obama's election continues the left's "fundamental transformation" of America. The new push for gun control legislation isn't just about "gun safety." It's about one more pillar of the American political culture that the left wants destroyed. Yesterday's lead letter to the editor at the Los Angeles Times really drove the point home, and hopefully the country's culture of individualism and self-sufficiency will outlast this latest push by the radical forces to bring fundamental, destructive change.

See, "Letters: Guns, America and the NRA":

Re "The NRA's hidden power," Opinion, Jan. 3

I commend Jennifer Carlson for her insight on the National Rifle Assn.'s grass-roots power and would add another comment on the philosophical side. This country was founded by individuals who were forced to take care of themselves. This self-reliance underpinned our nation's independence and westward expansion. Today we look to the government to supplement our living and protect us from lawless individuals. Those who choose to carry guns are expressing that historical philosophy of taking care of themselves in areas where the government is unable to fully meet the challenge.

While gun-control advocates frequently make comparisons to other nations, we should not forget that since the Civil War this country has not had foreign troops invade our soil. It is not the guns that protect us; it is the attitude that we are responsible for our personal destinies that has made America strong.

Bill Schoettler
Los Angeles

Continue reading.

And see, "The NRA's hidden power."

Master's of Business Administration No Longer Guarantees Financial Success

At the Wall Street Journal, "For Newly Minted M.B.A.s, a Smaller Paycheck Awaits":

Like many students, Steve Vonderweidt hoped that a master's degree in business administration would open doors to a new job with a higher paycheck.

But now, about eight months after receiving his M.B.A. from the University of Louisville, Mr. Vonderweidt, 36 years old, hasn't been able to find a job in the private sector, and continues to work as an administrator at a social-service agency that helps Louisville residents obtain food stamps, health care and other assistance. He is saddled with about $75,000 in student-loan debt—much of it from graduate school.

"It was a really great program," says Mr. Vonderweidt. "But the job part has been atrocious."

Soaring tuition costs, a weak labor market and a glut of recent graduates such as Mr. Vonderweidt are upending the notion that professional degrees like M.B.A.s are a sure ticket to financial success.

The M.B.A.'s lot is partly reflected in starting pay. While available figures vary by schools and employers, recruiters' expected median salary for newly hired M.B.A.s was essentially flat between 2008 and 2011, not adjusting for inflation, according to a survey by the Graduate Management Admission Council.

For graduates with minimal experience—three years or less—median pay was $53,900 in 2012, down 4.6% from 2007-08, according to an analysis conducted for The Wall Street Journal by PayScale.com. Pay fell at 62% of the 186 schools examined.

Even for more seasoned grads the trend is similar, says Katie Bardaro, lead economist for PayScale.com. "In general, it seems that M.B.A. pay is either stagnant or falling," she says.

The pressures are greatest for those attending less prestigious schools, says Stanford Business School professor Paul Oyer, who studies personnel trends. But even at top programs, some graduates are likely to struggle in today's environment, he says.

Another burdensome issue: a high debt load. Nearly 60% of graduating M.B.A.s said they expected to repay some loans after graduation, according to a 2012 GMAC survey. Among households headed by people with student debt who attended graduate school and are under 35, average student loan debt climbed to $81,758 in 2010 according a Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data. That figure is up from $55,594 in 2007.

It is all a far cry from the late 1980s and early 1990s heyday for M.B.A.s, when some companies would hire 100 or more M.B.A.s.

No. Not like the old days at all. I was considering an M.B.A if I didn't continue in political science. I took business classes in college. Finance was attractive to me, even a career on Wall Street.

Continue reading.

Republican Soul-Searching

Here's my post from the other day, on that National Journal piece, "What Does It Even Mean to Be a Republican These Days?"

It's a good question. There's a lot wrong with the current GOP, and it'll be interesting to see how the party makes its way out from the wilderness in national elections in the years ahead. The Republicans will come back with a vengeance at some point, but no doubt the soul searching will be painful. And it's quite likely that a new GOP will look little like the old Republican Party of, say, the 1980s and 1990s. If gay marriage becomes accepted under some kind of national consensus, there's still going to be huge fights over abortion rights, immigration, criminal justice issues, and, now more than ever, the right to bear arms. But most important of all will be economic issues. The Democrats are already overreaching on fiscal policy now, and we're looking at a possible period of years-long economic stagnation. At some point the class warfare shtick won't be enough even for liberal partisans. People need to have a chance for themselves and their families. But we'll see. We may well have already reached the point of no return and the Europeanization of America is upon us.

In any event, the New York Times reports, "G.O.P. Begins Soul-Searching After Tax Vote":

WASHINGTON — When Republican leaders in Congress agreed to raise taxes on the wealthy last week, it left the increasingly fractured and feuding party unified on perhaps only one point: that it is at a major crossroads.

From Mitt Romney’s loss on Election Day through the recent tax fight that shattered party discipline in the House of Representatives, Republicans have seen the foundations of their political strategy called into question, stirring a newly urgent debate about how to reshape and redefine their party.

At issue immediately is whether that can be achieved through a shift in tactics and tone, or will instead require a deeper rethinking of the party’s longtime positions on bedrock issues like guns and immigration. President Obama intends to test the willingness of Republicans to bend on those issues in the first months of his new term, when he plans to push for stricter gun control and a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

The coming legislative battles are certain to expose even more division in the party. And with establishment Republicans and Tea Party activists at times speaking as if they are from different parties altogether, concern is spreading throughout the ranks that things could get worse before they get better.

“The Republican Party can’t stay exactly where it is and stick its head in the sand and ignore the fact that the country is changing,” said Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and onetime leader of the Christian Coalition. “On the other hand, if the party were to retreat on core, pro-family stands and its positions on fiscal responsibility and taxes, it could very quickly find itself without a strong demographic support base.”

Having lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, Republicans now face a country that is increasingly younger, multiethnic and skeptical of Republican positions on some social issues. The party’s deficit-cutting agenda relies heavily on reducing taxes for the wealthy, which irks middle-class voters, and cutting spending on government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, that are popular with many voters.

Generational change is also robbing the party of some of its most effective political positions. Same-sex marriage, which less than a decade ago was an issue that reliably drove conservative voters to the polls in favor of Republicans, appears to be losing its potency with an electorate increasingly comfortable with gay unions.

None other than Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker who promised to fight for a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage during the Republican presidential primaries, now says his party must come to terms with the country’s rapidly shifting views on the subject.

“Walking around and pretending it doesn’t exist just means you’re going to become irrelevant,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview.

Continue reading.

Assad Says He Will Remain in Power

At the Los Angeles Times, "Syria President Bashar Assad makes clear he won't step down":

BEIRUT — Ignoring mounting casualties and dwindling support, Syrian President Bashar Assad made clear to the world Sunday in his first public address in half a year that he has no intention of relinquishing power and that he, not anyone else, would dictate the end for Syria's 21-month-old civil war.

Assad unveiled his own peace plan, with cosmetic similarities to a settlement proposal championed by internationally sponsored peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, but he declared he had no partner for negotiations in the Syrian opposition, whom he continued to brand as killers and terrorists.

Assad's dismissive attitude and strict terms for settlement offered little hope for a diplomatic breakthrough. It was a reminder of how intractable the conflict has become, with the U.N. estimating last week that more than 60,000 people had died.

Continue reading.

And AP has another video.

MSNBC's 'Cauldron of Bias

I missed this piece from David Zurawik in November, at the Baltimore Sun, "MSNBC really is more partisan than Fox, according to Pew study" (via Instapundit):

In writing about the Pew study released today, I was struck by the big story of how negative coverage on several levels of presidential politics had become.

I think this is big trouble for democracy, especially the hostile level of discourse in social media. And that it's something the media need to address collectively after the election.

But here's one of several fascinating smaller findings of the study that are kind of stunning -- even if they seem obvious and ho-hum to some of my more jaded, postmodern, aren't-we-cleverly-ironic colleagues:

ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.

More at the link.

And here's the Pew report, "BOTH CANDIDATES RECEIVED MORE NEGATIVE THAN POSITIVE COVERAGE IN MAINSTREAM NEWS, BUT SOCIAL MEDIA WAS EVEN HARSHER."

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

CARTOON CREDIT: William Warren.

New York Welfare Recipients Get Cash With EBT Cards at Strip Clubs, X-Rated Video Stores and Bars

Democrat family values.

At the New York Post, "Welfare recipients take out cash at strip clubs, liquor stores and X-rated shops." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also at Director Blue, "NICE JOB, BLOOMBERG: NYC welfare funds being spent in strip clubs, porn joints, liquor stores...", and Power Line, "$WEET CHARITY…"

Big-Spender Pelosi Wants More Taxes, Says Fiscal Deal Wasn't 'Enough On the Revenue Side...'

Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared on "Face the Nation" this morning. The clip is here.

And see The Hill, "Pelosi: More tax revenues must be part of next deficit deal."

There will never be enough "revenue" for what these never-enough-spending Democrats want to do. Pelosi essentially ruled out taxes on the middle class, which is impossible because the rich can't pay a "fair" enough share to fund all the goodies and entitlements that these idiot socialists demand. But stay with that video all the way and watch Pelosi rip into the Republican Party as a bunch of extremists. It's socialist concern trollery at its finest. (Via Memeorandum.)

Also at Weasel Zippers, "Pelosi Demands Additional Tax Hikes As Part Of Debt Ceiling Deal…":

Tax and spend… tax and spend… tax and spend… Democrats are killing this country.

Bingo.

Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp Slams Obama's Gun Control Push as 'Way in Extreme of What I Think Is Necessary...'

That's freshman Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, clearly way outside of the Beltway mentality. She's a pretty standard Democrat but obviously smart about the politics of gun control. She hammers the administration's --- and by extension Dianne Feinstein's --- gun-grab agenda. See: "Sen. Heidi Heitkamp: Reported Obama Gun Proposals ‘Way in Extreme’" (via Memeorandum).

Also at the clip is freshman GOP Rep. Tom Cotton, a war veteran and Harvard Law School graduate. And there's vapid Texas freshman Rep. Joaquín Castro, an affirmative action Democrat if there ever was one.

Los Angeles Times Editors Attack U.S. War on Terror Policies Without One Word on Obama's Unprecedented Drone War Kill-List Regime

Here's the piece, "Rights and the 'war on terror'."

In an unsurprising twist, the Times editors manage to make their critique a nearly exclusive attack on the previous administration, when they write, for example: "Guantanamo isn't the stain on America's reputation that it was during the George W. Bush administration..." No siree, nothing's as big a stain on America's reputation as the Bush administration's national security record! Tell me something I didn't already know!

Seriously. The editors make not a single mention of the administration drone war kill-list regime that's been in the news plenty of times since being revealed last year, for example, at the New York Times, "Secret 'Kill List' Tests Obama's Principles." And just this week the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the administration was not required to release records of Obama's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in Yemen in 2011: Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, and Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. The Washington Post has that, "Judge backs Obama administration on secrecy of targeted killings of terrorism suspects." (The ACLU says it will appeal the court's ruling.)

For the record, since I wasn't clear in previous posts, there are some on the left who're critical of the administration and are pushing for an end to Obama's unconstitutional warfare. Katrina vanden Heuvel, who I personally detest, was right last year to call out Obama for his bankrupt hypocrisy, "Judge backs Obama administration on secrecy of targeted killings of terrorism suspects."

And personally I don't get all that worked up by drone warfare in any case. Frankly I couldn't care less that Anwar Awlaki's dead, although I'd like to know why the U.S. targeted his son in a completely separate drone strike. But that's beside the point. Radical leftists continue to attack Bush administration officials with demonizing language worthy of the Nazi regime. But we know that President Obama's policies not only match but surpass anything that the Bush administration is allegedly guilty of. There is no justice if the left applies a despicable double standard, and that's what I'll be hammering in my reporting on these so-called human rights abuses.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Advisor Harold Koh Personifies Left's Epic Hypocrisy on National Security and Human Rights."

Obama Advisor Harold Koh Personifies Left's Epic Hypocrisy on National Security and Human Rights

At the Los Angeles Times, "Obama advisor who had decried 'war on terror' now defends drones":

WASHINGTON — As dean of Yale Law School, Harold Hongju Koh was among the fiercest critics of President George W. Bush's "war on terror," arguing that his administration had trampled the Constitution and tarnished America's international standing by claiming the power to capture "enemy combatants" abroad and hold them without charges at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The next administration must "restore the rule of law in the national security arena," end "excessive government secrecy" and set aside the "claims of unfettered executive power," Koh told a House panel in 2008.

But as the State Department's legal advisor in that new administration, Koh helped set out a legal justification for policies that include a ramped-up use of unmanned drones to attack and kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan as well as in Yemen and Somalia, far from the combat zone in Afghanistan. Thousands have died, and the targets have included U.S. citizens who were seen as inspiring attacks against Americans.

Koh, who is preparing to return to Yale as President Obama's first term comes to an end, has become a symbol of national security policies that many feel are not significantly different than those of Obama's predecessor.

Koh has many defenders who say the administration's anti-terrorism policies would have been harsher if he were not there. But the surprising turn has left some liberal critics puzzled. Did Koh change, or is there some "deeper pathology" that causes "top administration lawyers to rubber stamp power grabs?" Bruce Ackerman, another Yale law professor, wrote in a news blog.

Obama's team unquestionably made progress on some fronts. The harsh treatment and even torture of prisoners was ended, and several dozen detainees were repatriated to other countries. But Congress blocked plans to close the Guantanamo prison and to prosecute its remaining detainees before civilian judges and juries.

The rhetoric was toned down as well. Officials no longer speak of a "global war on terror" or "enemy combatants." They talk instead of applying the "rule of law" to cope with new problems.

But Obama's drone policy has caused dismay among many human rights activists. When Koh stepped forward two years ago to offer a legal defense, it had a familiar ring. In wartime and in "response to the horrific 9/11 attacks," the president "may use force consistent with the [nation's] inherent right of self-defense," Koh told the American Society of International Law.

Right. An inherent national interest to self-defense, which includes developing a drone warfare kill-list regime unprecedented in its human rights violations. Gee, not even John Yoo thought of that. But then again, Yoo wrote sincerely to protect American security. The progressives just say and do whatever they can to win and keep power.

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons.

Abandoning Afghanistan

One of the best pieces on Afghanistan I've read in a long time, from Gary Schmitt, at the Weekly Standard:

When Senator Barack Obama was running for president back in 2008, he accused the Bush administration, his opponent Senator John McCain, and their supporters of taking their eyes off the ball by fighting a war in Iraq and ignoring the “necessary war”—the war in Afghanistan. Well, four short years later, by Obama’s lights, Afghanistan is no longer the necessary war but a war to be ignored, a war to be “ended” regardless of the strategic consequences of doing so precipitously.

It’s now clear that Barack Obama’s only abiding interest in Afghanistan was rhetorical, allowing him political space to pull American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and, once done, to begin the same process in Afghanistan. Even the surge of 30,000 more American troops that began in 2010 was, in hindsight, intended to be less a strategic game-changer (as the earlier surge in Iraq had been) than a stopgap measure to stabilize a deteriorating situation. Smaller than what had been requested by the generals on the ground and put fully in place for only one fighting season, the surge allowed the president to appear serious while, in fact, providing him cover for pulling the plug on the war effort altogether.

Make no mistake, pulling the plug he is. Despite internal Pentagon reports that indicate the Afghans will not be ready to take over combat operations in 2014, news accounts have the White House pushing for cutting the remaining 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan this coming year by another 20,000 to 30,000, with the likely goal of leaving fewer than 10,000 noncombat troops in place by the end of 2014. This is not just a race to the exit but a full-out sprint. And once again it’s a decision made against the best advice of the commanders in the field, who would like nothing more than to hold the current force levels constant through at least the 2013 fighting season.

None of this should come as a surprise. Since early in his presidency, when deigning to speak at all about Afghanistan, President Obama has said little about why defeating the Taliban is important. When he does make reference to Afghanistan, it’s invariably to talk of timelines for bringing the troops home or, as he said at the U.N. in September, ending the war “on schedule in 2014.” ...

Continue reading.

Obama's national security policy has been politically-driven from day one. I find it especially fascinating as that fact plays out regarding the administration's kill list regime --- and the leftist hypocrisy surrounding the massive human rights violations under the Obama Democrats, violations objectively worse than those alleged against the hated Bush/Cheney cabal.

Winter Break

At Althouse, "How I spent the winter break between semesters at the University of Wisconsin Law School":

I sat in my Freedom Chair or stood at my motorized desk in front of a wall of picture windows looking out over our snow-covered yard though which a dog occasionally bounded, and — once the blizzard came — went cross-country skiing nearly every day. I ate many delicious meals at home with my beloved husband, and watched some football games on TV. I blogged, read, graded some exams, worked on new syllabi, reorganized a couple closets, and — at long last — burned the rest of the CDs I still cared about into my iTunes.

Keep reading.

I my world, winter break doesn't start until the papers are graded and semester grades submitted. Then I can forget about it --- and this year I have until February 5th to chill, with the college's new 16 week calendar giving faculty members a really long and wonderful holiday.

PHOTO: "At the Winter Walk Café..." (on Flickr).

Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview: Lou Holtz, 'Why Notre Dame Is Back on Top'

Well, it seems like old times, that's for sure.

From the interview:

The first time I met Lou Holtz was three years ago at a Republican policy retreat—he's a friend of House Speaker John Boehner. At the time, Notre Dame was a mediocre football team following a string of disappointing seasons. Yet here was a former coach of the team—when it had last been a national power, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s—predicting a return to the glory days from a newly hired coach.

Brian Kelly "will have Notre Dame back in the national championship game," Mr. Holtz said. "The man is a winner."

I laughed back then when he said it. After Mr. Holtz resigned in 1996, having spent a decade in the demanding job, he was followed by Bob Davie (1997-2001), Tyrone Willingham (2002-04) and Charlie Weis (2005-09), who all arrived amid high hopes and left with no titles and few bowl victories. Why would Brian Kelly be any different? Well, now Mr. Holtz is the one laughing. The Fighting Irish face another storied college team, Alabama's Crimson Tide, on Tuesday in a dream matchup for the NCAA, television executives and, not least, college football fans. The game could be the most avidly anticipated since . . . the last time these two teams met in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship, on New Year's Eve, 1973—a game won by Notre Dame...

Continue reading.

Baby Grabs Doctor's Hand During Caesarean Section

At Human Events, "A CHILD REACHES FROM THE WOMB TO TAKE HER DOCTOR’S HAND."

And at Life News, "Photo of Baby Reaching Out From Womb During C-Section Goes Viral."

What Does It Even Mean to Be a Republican These Days?

From Jill Lawrence, at National Journal:

First Republicans began to fracture over gay marriage. Then some of them started talking about revamping federal immigration laws. After the Newtown tragedy, a few even said that it might be time to consider changes in gun laws. Now scores of GOP lawmakers — 125, to be exact —have voted to raise tax rates on wealthy Americans.

The GOP has been fretting about changing demographics, bad messaging, lagging technology and an inferior ground game in the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss. But in reality, it’s time for a whole new level of soul-searching. What is the Republican Party if it does not embody never-surrender defiance on tax rates, illegal immigrants, gun rights, and traditional marriage?

Not my party, for one thing.

Continue reading.

The 10 Biggest Political Debacles of 2012

From John Hawkins, at Right Wing News.

Before I even scrolled down the post I was thinking that the electorate made the biggest debacle in re-electing Barack Hussein, and John and I are in sync on that.

But check out the rest of the picks.

Muslims Seething Over Charlie Hebdo

At Israel Matzav.

And Elder of Ziyon, "The Charlie Hebdo Caricature of Mohammed."

American Power Makes the 'Top 100 Conservative Websites'

Coming in at #97, so there you go.

At Red Flag News, "The Official Top 100 Conservative Websites For 2013 by Alexa Rank (Q1).

And ICYMI, at Zilla's, "Welcome to the Second Annual Zilla Awards for Awesomeness in the Dextrosphere!"