Change - From Neo-Con to Neo-Phyte!

Obama has brought about these significant 'changes' to date:

Deficits have gone from billions to trillions.

Gazans are rewarded for continuing to rocket Israel. (See 1 below.)

Kissing Putin's a-- with a reset toy versus looking into his eyes.

Diss American capitalists, engage Iran's Ayatollahs.

Shrink the economy, grow government - we've gone from a free lunch to a very expensive lunch. (See 2 below.)

Fill Gitmo with potential terrorists, empty Gitmo of all captors.

Cabinet with those current in their tax obligations replaced with one where some owed taxes.

Encourage entrepreneurship, crush nation's spirit and tax initiatives.

Campaign on hope, govern by despair.

Poor public speaker versus gifted public speaker.

Withdraw troops in Iran, send troops to Afghanistan.

Limit stem cell research, expand stem cell research.

From stay the course to wander all over the course.

Rail against energy dependency but thwart building more and efficient nuclear power plants. Employ scare tactics. (See 3 below)

Attack Cheney for zealous oversight of terrorist threat to embrace Cheney's legal arguments and expand upon them. (See 4 below.)

I would categorize Obama's 'changes' as messiah mirages - smoke and mirror stuff - style versus sensible substance. This is why the markets have tanked. There is litte behind Obama's movie-set style leadership but an awful lot of lofty rhetoric and frenetic action.

In a recent memo, I wrote foreign policy was the next vinyard Obama and his minions would trample in and Sec. Clinton has begun. She delivered a gift with incorrect Russian on it to indicate we were ready to make nice in the spirit of renewed Russian co-operation. Then she proceeded to Europe to inform them our Democracy was older. Before going there, she applied more pressure on Israel regarding settlement expansion, announced a give-away reward to Hamas. Now we have been slapped in the face by the Palestinian's F.M.'s resignation. Not bad for another neo-phyte and it only took about a week.

Before she left, Obama offered to undercut our allies over an Eastern European missile site if Putin would soften Russia's stance towards Iran's nuclear program.

Finally we have been down on our knees trying to wean Assad away from Iran and he just sent us his response.

As I wrote earlier, Obama's foreign policy initiatives could prove far more dangerous than his domestic policies and thus, Israel could be forced to take unilateral action. (See 5, 5a and 5b below.)

What is fascinating is that Obama has concluded health care costs are the basis for most of our fiscal problems so he wants us to rush and embrace his proposed government take over of our health care system - the envy of the world but soon to be the equivalent of Canada's.

How will this happen? By lowering the cost of the government's program thru subidizing it by increasing our national debt. The initial subsidized lowered cost will cause more and more to switch from their existing coverage and soon the current system will be no more. Then, those who switch will subsequently find out about the trap they have been lured into. Ah, but it will be too late to reverse. It's called bait and switch.

If you think insurance bureaucrats are irrational just wait till you start getting help from federal bureaucrats.

The real way to solve the spiraling costs of health care and Social Security is for Americans to die sooner. When drug companies quit discovering new drugs because doing so is unprofitable under the government re-imbursement porgram and when health care becomes rationed and doctors start working 9 to 5, longevity will decline and then our health care and Social Security costs will melt away.

The problem with this approach is that it is not politically palpable. The more subtle way is ruin the current system and cap our insatiable appetite for and ability to live longer and longer.

Fred Barnes writes Obama's popularity is not what polls indicate. (See 6 below.)

Finally, Investor's Business Daily suggests 'The Inquisition' should begin with Barney. (See 7 below.)

Have a great week and ask your doctor what he thinks about Obama's health care proposals.

Dick



Dick

1) That Surreal Gaza Reconstruction Conference
By Daniel Pipes


Was I the only one rubbing my eyes in disbelief yesterday, as the Egyptian government hosted an "International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza"?

It took place in Sharm El-Sheikh, attended by delegations from 71 states, plus 16 regional, international, and financial organizations. Its stated goal was to raise US$2.8 billion, of which $1.3 was for rebuilding what had been destroyed in the course of Israel's recent war on Hamas (the rest would be sent to the Palestinian Authority to help improve its standing). The actual amount raised at the conference was $4.5 billion which, when added to previously committed funds, means the grand total for Gaza and the PA comes to $5.2 billion, to be disbursed over a two-year period. A delighted Egyptian foreign minister called the amount "beyond our expectations." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it "a very productive conference"
Among the larger donations included a Gulf Cooperation Council contribution of $1.65 billion over five years and a U.S. government pledge of $900 million from the American taxpayer (of which $300 million will go for Gaza rebuilding).
Husni Mubarak of Egypt, Nicholas Sarkozy of France, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations, Amr Moussa of the Arab League, and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority gave speeches.

Why my disbelief at this spectacle: I wonder if those eminentoes and worthies really believe that warfare in Gaza is a thing of the past, and that the time for reconstruction is nigh?

They must not read dispatches from southern Israel, which report the daily warfare that continues there. Take a representative news item from Yedi'ot Aharonot, dated February 28, "Experts: Grads in Ashkelon were advanced."

The two Grad rockets that landed in Ashkelon Saturday morning[, Feb. 28,] were new and improved models, capable of greater destruction than those usually fired from Gaza. One of the rockets hit a school in the southern city, and succeeded in penetrating the fortification used to protect it from projectiles. … The Grad rockets that hit Ashkelon were two of only five or six locally manufactured 170 mm rockets ever fired at Israel, experts say. The rarely used rockets have a range of 14km (8.6 miles) and are capable of massive damage, evident from the destruction witnesses described on the scene of Saturday's attack.

In an official protest to the United Nations, the Israel's Ambassador Gabriela Shalev noted that "there have been nearly 100 rocket and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip" since the ceasefire on January 18, or over two per day. These have been increasing in number, with 12 rockets were fired at Sderot on March 1 alone.
Responding to these attacks, the Israeli cabinet resolved on March 1 that "should the firing from the Gaza Strip continue, it would be met by a painful, sharp, strong and uncompromising response by the security forces." Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu echoed this bellicosity, reportedly telling a European leader that he would not sacrifice Israel's security "for a smile."

(Saudi foreign minister Saud Al-Faisal, in unexpected agreement, noted that rebuilding Gaza would be "difficult and fool-hardy, so long as peace and security do not prevail" there.)

What the hell are the donor countries doing, getting in the middle of an on-going war with their high-profile supposed reconstruction effort? My best guess: this permits them subtly to signal Jerusalem that it better not attack Gaza again, because doing so will confront it with a lot of very angry donor governments – including, of course, the Obama administration.

Adding to the surreal quality is a blithe disregard for Israel's security needs. Consider the attitude of Douglas Alexander, international development secretary for Britain's Labour government, who pledged £30 million of his taxpayers' funds to rebuild houses, schools, and hospitals in Gaza. "There is a desperate need for tough restrictions on the supply of goods to be relaxed," he said, demanding next that "Israel must do the right thing and allow much-needed goods to get through to those men, women and children who continue to suffer."

That's very humanitarian of Mr. Alexander, but he willfully ignored Israeli expectations that Hamas will confiscate steel, concrete, and other imported construction materials to build more tunnels, bunkers, and rockets. After all, Hamas appropriated prior deliveries intended for civilians, and so blatantly that even the usually docile United Nations Relief and Works Agency protested.

Husni Mubarak might warn Hamas not to treat the donors' pledges as a "conquest of war," but it will assuredly do precisely that. U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (Republican of Illinois) got it right: "To route $900 million to this area, and let's say Hamas was only able to steal 10 percent of that, we would still become Hamas' second-largest funder after Iran."

So, under the cheery banner of building, in Clinton's words, "a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors," donor states are not only defying Israel to protect itself from rocket fire but they are funneling matériel to Hamas.
Is this ignorance or mendacity? I suspect the latter; no one is that dumb.

2) From a teacher in the Nashville area.

Who worries about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream?

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top s pot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best.

Everyone applauded.

He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely could say more. She did not have to.A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn't know.The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten.Olivia won by a landslide. Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream ..The other forty-eight percent of us know we're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.



3) Obama Channels Cheney

Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.


In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.

In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."

That's about as pure an assertion of Presidential power as they come, and we're beginning to wonder if the White House has put David Addington, Mr. Cheney's chief legal aide, on retainer. The practical effect is to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program that Mr. Obama repeatedly claimed to find so heinous -- at least before taking office. Justice, by the way, is making the same state secrets argument in a separate lawsuit involving rendition and a Boeing subsidiary.

Hide the children, but we agree with Mr. Obama that the President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation hearings. It's reassuring to know the Administration is refusing to compromise core executive-branch prerogatives, especially on war powers.

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case.

By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same.

4) Anti-CO2 Campaign Like An Atom Bomb On U.S. Economy
By S. FRED SINGER

The CO2 wars have begun. Presumably following White House directions, the EPA is ready to issue an "Endangerment Finding" on carbon dioxide, paving the way for regulations to control CO2 emissions. But with over one million "major stationary sources," a full-blown application of the Clean Air Act would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the US economy — all without any scientific justification. Hence there is speculation that the White House strategy is to use the threat of EPA regulation to force Congress to take action.

The CO2 wars have begun. Presumably following White House directions, the EPA is ready to issue an "Endangerment Finding" on carbon dioxide, paving the way for regulations to control CO2 emissions. But with over one million "major stationary sources," a full-blown application of the Clean Air Act would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the US economy — all without any scientific justification. Hence there is speculation that the White House strategy is to use the threat of EPA regulation to force Congress to take action.

Is this just a bluff — and how will Congress respond, in view of the financial meltdown, failure of emission-trading in Europe, and Chinese refusal to cut CO2 emissions? The answer seems to be: "Not this year!"

An endangerment finding that CO2 is detrimental to "health and human welfare" must be based on scientific facts — and they will certainly be disputed. Furthermore, in July 2008 the EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and there have been many negative comments to which the EPA must respond — under threat of litigation.

So, proposed action by EPA is not a "done deal" and may only be an empty threat. Many in Congress understand these matters well — or should. With fossil fuels supplying over 85 percent of all energy in the US, there will be much hesitation before passing any CO2 legislation. Keep in mind also that the Senate once turned down Kyoto-like regulation by unanimous vote and recently defeated attempts to pass Cap & Trade bills to place national limits on CO2 emission — a costly method of rationing, even if emission permits can be traded.

Short of direct regulation by mandates, Cap & Trade is probably the worst possible scheme, involving not only reporting of emissions, monitoring, inspection, and punishment, but also special deals for favored industries and other parties. Some in Congress therefore like the idea of Cap & Trade, which does not sound like a tax but would cost even more. The White House estimate is $650 billion over an eight-year period. And of course, it would be an open invitation to lobby Congress for special favors: the "Lobbyists Full Employment Act of 2009."

One of the worst features of Cap & Trade is the idea of "soft caps," which would allow Congress to increase the yearly allowance if the price for permits seems too high. In essence, anyone who bought emission permits for future use could find his investment nullified by Act of Congress. This feature alone may scuttle the legislation.

Professional economists, in and out of the government, prefer a straight carbon tax to Cap & Trade: it is more transparent, easier to administrate, and less subject to abuse. But here too Congress can legislate exemptions — as it does for any other tax. For example, should fire departments and police departments pay a carbon tax on their fuel use? Should hospitals? Clergy? Department of Defense?

A carbon tax would of course represent a huge subsidy — not only to uneconomic biofuels, like corn-based ethanol, but also to nuclear energy. Environmental lobbies would object and soon argue for an all-encompassing energy tax — not just on fossil fuels. But of course, they would try to exempt biofuels, wind and solar.

Perhaps the only tax that makes sense is a tax on motor fuels, principally gasoline — even if one is not concerned about global warming. It would reduce the amount of driving, decrease oil use and imports, congestion and traffic deaths. It could be raised gradually, perhaps to the four-dollar level of last year, and kept there — independent of the price of crude oil. It could be made revenue-neutral and used to eliminate other regressive taxes.

But why reduce CO2 emission at all?

• CO2 is not a "pollutant." The best evidence we have from climate science shows that any warming from the emission of greenhouse gases is insignificant — contrary to claims by the UN-IPCC. See the NIPCC report, Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate, at www.sepp.org.

• The climate has not been warming since 1998 — in spite of steadily rising CO2 levels. But even if it were warming, reputable economists have shown that it would yield overall benefits. For details, see the NIPCC report.

• Finally, the level of CO2 is now largely controlled by emissions from China. But even if all nations were to cut emissions according to the Kyoto Protocol, CO2 levels would continue to rise, albeit at a slightly slower rate.

We conclude therefore that the drive to reduce CO2 emissions is not concern about climate. After all, there are no comparable efforts to limit the global emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas; perhaps because methane comes from farming and cattle-raising, while CO2 is associated with energy production and industry, and therefore considered "bad."

Ultimately, ideology may be what's fueling the CO2 wars.


5) Palestinian PM Fayyad's Exit May Usher in Hamas' West Bank takeover

Prime minister Salam Fayyad quits ahead of Palestinian unity.

By submitting his resignation as Palestinian prime minister Saturday, March 7, the pro-American Salam Fayyad removes a major roadblock to a power-sharing accord between the extremist Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah, which governs the West Bank.

The unity talks have still a way to go. They may fail as they have before. And Fayyad's resignation may not be final.

And accord, however, would open the door to Hamas domination of the West Bank in the same way as the Iran-backed Palestinian Islamists threw the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority out of Gaza two years ago.

Fayyad confirmed that his resignation would go into effect after the "unity government" was formed – although not later than the end of March. His exit removes Washington's man in the Palestinian Authority's Ramallah government in perfect time for the power-sharing talks to resume in Cairo Tuesday March 10.

His action, three days after US secretary of state Hillary Clinton held well-publicized talks with Fayyad and Abbas in Ramallah, comes as a serious blow to America prestige and one up for Iran and its Palestinian proxy.

Clearly Abbas and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, godfather of "Palestinian unity", are working to a different clock to that of Washington.

Middle East sources affirm that, by holding back from toppling the Hamas regime in Gaza, Israel must take responsibility for helping to empower the Palestinian terrorists to dictate a power-sharing deal on its terms and at its tempo.

The Palestinian negotiations will no doubt try and race toward a conclusion before the end of March at around the same time as Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu will be introducing his government coalition.

With all this happening, the Palestinian prime minister, a former World Bank economist in Washington, saw that in a unity government, his only function would be to act as a respectable non-terrorist address for the receipt of the $5.5 billion dollars the international donors meeting in Sharm e-Sheikh on March 2 approved for Gaza reconstruction.

This would reduce him to a figurehead, the public face of a Palestinian regime which brought the Hamas terrorists to power in the two Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

It is too soon to judge the success of this dodge in persuading world governments to cough up the funds they have committed for Gaza. Hamas has no other need of the former Washington-based banker and in fact, one of its conditions for sharing government with Fatah was his removal.

The deal is not yet in the bag. More than once, Middle East sources have stressed the Palestinian extremists and their Syrian and Iranian sponsors would on no account form a partnership with a Palestinian element cooperating with the United States and Israel in security and intelligence matters. Fayyad epitomizes this joint effort and Abbas may decide to sacrifice him for an agreement with Hamas.

Once installed in government, Hamas would get set for sweeping the coming Palestinian presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010, thereby closing the circle of its domination of the West Bank.

This election date was another of Hamas' conditions for its partnership-in-government with Fatah.

This unfolding scenario, which bodes ill for central Israel as Hamas' next target after the missile-battered South, could have been prevented.

Military sources report that towards the end of its January offensive, the IDF command gave Israel's security cabinet an estimated four-hour timetable for seizing Hamas leaders hidden in bunkers in Gaza City together with the captive Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit. Israeli intelligence had discovered their whereabouts and the way to their hideout had been cleared. Hamas was no longer fighting.

But prime minister Ehud Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who headed the war cabinet, shied away from a decision. Their indecision, by offering the terrorist leaders a lifeline against total defeat, left them free to come out of their holes and gear up for their next venture, takeover of Palestinian government.

It may be recalled that the Olmert government also distinguished itself in 2006 by succumbing to misguided pressure from Washington and letting Hamas run for election. Its victory paved the way for its seizure of power in the Gaza Strip in January 2006. Finally, in January 2008, the same government, this time with Ehud Barak attached as defense minister, opened the door for Hamas to move in on the West Bank by sealing a pact with Fatah.

This dangerous reality may be lurking for Israel's post-election administration under Netanyahu before it has a chance to take preventive action. He need not count on salvation from Washington. The Obama administration, Secretary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell, would no doubt find it politic to avoid noticing the terrorist element dominating the Palestinian "unity government." They would insist that their dealings with the Palestinians are confined to the "good," non-terrorist factions.

Washington would try and hold up the Palestinian security forces and presidential guard trained by US national security adviser James Jones' American instructors as safeguards against any Hamas takeover of Ramallah and other West Bank towns.

It would be convenient to forget that those same Palestinian Authority forces did not fire a shot against the coup Hamas staged in the Gaza Strip in June 2007.

5a) U.S. turns up heat on Israel over settlements
By Barak Ravid

Israel is under increased pressure from the United States over settlement construction. In the past month, since Barack Obama was sworn in as U.S. president, Israel has received four official complaints from members of the new administration regarding various issues linked to West Bank settlements.

A senior government official in Jerusalem told Haaretz that the complaints represent a gradual increase in American pressure vis-a-vis settlement activity. "This is going to be one of the main issues that the Obama administration will be dealing with in the coming weeks and months," the official said. "It is not going to be easy to argue with them."


The American complaints were relayed to Jerusalem via senior officials in the State Department as well as the National Security Council, which seek clarifications and explanations from Israel.

The four separate complaints relate to the demolition of Palestinian-owned homes in East Jerusalem, reports of Israeli plans to construct additional housing in the E1 area, between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem, the relocation of the illegal outpost at Migron to a new, as-yet unbuilt neighborhood of the Adam settlement and to plans to build thousands of new residential units in the settlement of Efrat.

"Thus far," the Israeli official said, "the issue has been raised by senior officials, but it is going to go higher up the hierarchy. It is a safe bet that special envoy George Mitchell will raise the matter when he makes his next visit to the Middle East in a few weeks, after the Netanyahu government is sworn in."

There was an additional embarrassing incident between Jerusalem and Washington over the weekend, against the backdrop of comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against the demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem. Clinton said during her visit to Ramallah that house demolitions "do not help the peace process" and violate the spirit of the road map.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat responded by briefing foreign correspondents. According to the Washington Post, Barkat described Clinton's comments as "a lot of air" and claimed that Clinton had been misled by the Palestinians. "I totally reject the criticism," Barkat said. "It is a lot of air. There is no substance. Maybe it is because there is a new administration in the States. I am not willing to say the houses will remain houses. It is the wrong signal to send to people who break the law," he added.

In response to Barkat's criticism, the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and sources close to Clinton were quick to relay strongly-worded protests to the Prime Minister's Office; they described Barkat's comments as "an insult" to the Secretary of State. On Friday afternoon, in a highly unusual step, the PMO issued a clarification in which Barkat claimed that his comments were taken out of context and that the articles in the U.S. press were 'inaccurate and incorrect."

According to the Prime Minister's Office, Barkat even claimed that his comments were not directed at Clinton but rather at the false Palestinian arguments. "We regret any implication that Secretary of State Clinton was in any way being criticized," read the statement. Clinton met briefly with Barkat during her visit to Israel last week, despite her aides' concerns that meeting with him could land her in hot water because of the disputed status of Jerusalem.

5b) Assad purges Syrian security services ahead of new bid for Beirut


Syrian president Bashar Assad has ordered 40 intelligence and army officers arrested and replaced by men personally loyal to him in preparation for planned moves to recover his grip on Lebanon, sources in Washington and Beirut disclose. The Obama administration warned the Syrian ruler to desist from his maneuverings to orchestrate a victory for Hizballah and its allies in Lebanon's July 7 elections. The warning was delivered by two US emissaries who met Syrian foreign minister Walild Moalem in Damascus Saturday, March 7.

US intelligence estimates that Assad's power at home is on the ascendant, emboldening him to attempt to manipulate the Lebanese elections in favor of pro-Syrian elements. The Syrian president is aiming for a new government in Beirut that will agree to boycott the international tribunal in the Hague set up to bring the murderers of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri to justice.

The court held its first sitting last Sunday.

At the outset of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Middle East trip last Monday,

Washington had no plans to send envoys to Damascus. Only after discovering large numbers of Syrian agents armed with wads of cash streaming into Beirut, did the administration decide to consign State Department official Jeffrey Feltman and National Security Council member Daniel Shapiro to Damascus to caution Assad to keep his hands off Lebanon.

The two US officials called in at Beirut first for consultations and, after meeting the Syrian foreign minister, returned to the Lebanese capital with a report for prime minister Fouad Siniora.

6) Enemies of the White House: Discontent is growing on the center-right.
By Fred Barnes


President Obama isn't riding as high as he thinks. He's popular, though no more than is usual for a new president. His party is in charge on Capitol Hill, but its command of the Senate is fraying. And just last week, the faint outlines of a center-right coalition in opposition to Obama's policies--and increasingly to Obama himself--began to emerge. It's an embryonic grouping that may prove to be ephemeral. But maybe not.

Obama's situation is the same as Bill Clinton's in 1993. Clinton had run for president as a moderate, just as Obama ran as a pragmatic, rather than an ideological, liberal. But both turned sharply liberal once in the White House. Clinton alienated the political center by promoting a government-run health care plan, gays in the military, and midnight basketball as a crime-fighting tool. Obama is doing the same--at least he's starting to--with his bid to enact the most far-reaching and costly set of liberal programs since the New Deal.

If the political attitudes of Americans have been propelled to the left by the Obama campaign and the economic slump, as many liberals insist, the president should have little to worry about. But if America is still predominantly a moderate-to-conservative country, as I believe it is, then Obama may be fostering a stronger and more united gathering of opponents than he and his strategists imagine.

They look at Republicans and their cockiness is reinforced. Indeed, Republicans do appear anemic at the moment. Their new national chairman, Michael Steele, is off to an unimpressive
start. Conservatives, the base of the party, are squabbling among themselves. But what Republicans do now is considerably less important than what Obama does. Republicans had a skillful leader in 1993, Newt Gingrich. He wasn't the biggest factor in their comeback, however. A failed Democratic president was.

Obama hasn't failed. He's been in office less than two months. But he is sowing the seeds of failure, both economically and politically. He doesn't quite own the economy yet, but he does own the stock market. It's a bet on the future. And so far the stock market has registered a resounding vote of no confidence in Obama's economic policies. Nor has Obama helped matters with his seeming indifference to the uninterrupted decline in equities since his inauguration.

What doesn't the market like? The pork-filled stimulus package was anything but reassuring. The failure of the Obama administration to produce a credible bank rescue plan is downright alarming. On top of those stumbles, the Obama budget for the next 10 years has spooked the stock market all the more. It calls for a huge burst of domestic spending paid for by higher taxes on the well-to-do and business. That's a recipe for a transfer of wealth, not for an economic recovery or surge in stock prices.

The budget scared prominent Obamaphiles like David Brooks of the New York Times and Jim Cramer, the boisterous financial broadcaster. Brooks wrote that Obama "is not who we thought he was." Cramer said Obama is causing "the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president." Criticized for his comment by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, Cramer responded: "If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists--tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and get poorer by the day." Moderate Democrats and Republicans were also shaken and said so publicly. The business community, which has tried to appease Obama, is growing fearful.


Here's the point: These are the people who drive centrist opinion. And the key to building a center-right coalition is drawing them away from Obama. The right is already in full anti-Obama mode. But attracting centrists and independents is something Republicans can't pull off on their own. Now they are getting help.

Congressional Republicans are actually doing a better job than they've gotten credit for in making themselves acceptable to centrists. The refrain of House Republican leader John Boehner is that Republicans must have "better solutions" to "win the issues." Their alternatives to Obama's economic policies have gotten little media attention, but they do exist and most are sensible. That's sufficient for the time being.

Democratic anxiety over the possibility of losing centrists--what there is of it--was reflected in the White House campaign to identify talk show superstar Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party. He's not. Parties in the minority seldom have leaders except in parliamentary systems. But Limbaugh, though he may not appeal to centrists, is important. He and his followers are an indispensable part of an effective center-right coalition--a simple fact of political life that appears to have been lost on Republican snobs who would ostracize Limbaugh.

A majority coalition of centrists and conservatives is a long shot for the near future. In Clinton's case, it didn't spring into being until his second year in office. But in Obama's case, the same elements are already present. Pollster David Winston found in a survey last fall that the electorate's ideology hadn't
changed. Most voters, including independents, remain right of center. This was ratified by the exit poll on Election Day. Only 22 percent identified themselves as liberal, while 34 percent were conservatives and 44 percent moderates.

Clinton didn't notice that a coalition had congealed in opposition to his policies until Republicans captured Congress in the 1994 landslide. He survived by shifting to the right and compromising with Republicans. Obama, for all his talk about bipartisanship, isn't ready to do that, and he may never have to. Then again, the possibility he'll need to accommodate a center-right alliance is growing.

7) Let The Inquisition Start With Frank
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Oversight: Congressman Barney Frank says he wants some of those responsible for our current financial meltdown to be prosecuted. And we couldn't agree more. First up in the court dock: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.


Even by the extraordinarily loose standards of Congress, it takes some chutzpah for someone such as Frank to suggest that he'll seek prosecutions for those behind the housing and financial crunch and for what he called "a strongly empowered systemic risk regulator."

For Frank, perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration.

But first, a little trip down memory lane.

It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), that lay behind the crisis. After regulatory changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act by President Clinton in 1995, Fannie and Freddie went into hyper-drive, channeling literally trillions of dollars into the housing markets, using leverage and implicit taxpayers' guarantees.

In November 2000, President Clinton's Housing and Urban Development Department would trumpet "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." The vehicles for this were Fannie and Freddie. It was the largest expansion in housing aid ever.

Still, from the early 1990s on, many people both inside and outside Washington were alarmed by what they saw at Fannie and Freddie.

Not Barney Frank: Starting in the early 1990s, he (and other Democrats) stood athwart efforts by regulators, Congress and the White House to get the runaway housing market under control.

He opposed reform as early as 1992. And, in response to another attempt bring Fannie-Freddie to heel in 2000, Frank responded it wasn't needed because there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

In 2002, Frank nixed reforms again. See a pattern here?

Even after federal regulators discovered in 2003 that Fannie and Freddie executives had overstated earnings by as much as $10.6 billion in order to boost bonuses, Frank didn't miss a beat.

President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

If it had passed, the housing crisis likely would have never boiled over, at least not the extent it did, taking the economy with it. Instead, led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's hard to say why Frank did all this. It could be his close ties to the Neighborhood Assistance Corp., a powerful housing activist group based in Boston, which controls billions in loans. Or that he received some $40,100 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie from 1989 to 2008. Or that he has been romantically linked to a one-time executive at Fannie during the 1990s.

Whatever the case, his conflicts are obvious and outrageous, and his refusal to countenance reforms of Fannie and Freddie contributed mightily to today's meltdown. If you're looking for a culprit in the meltdown to prosecute, no one fits the bill better than Frank.