---
Shiller sees possible gloomy outlook. (See 1 below.)
---
Response to my most recent memo
| " I suggest it noteworthy that a Supreme Court decision to overturn the so called"ObamaCare" could be just what Obama is looking for in that he can claim is was the Court who took this away, not him and gives him another path to serve the single payer option. This guy is not politically ignorant." |
My reply: "There are all kind of angles but to have a major legislative effort over ruled would not be a feather in this dunce's cap."
His reply to my reply: "Love your terminology and do agree. We hope this and all other liberty reducers are defeated."
Mine back: "Thanks, but like Hydra's snakes you slay one only to find another. "
---
Off to Orlando for Hebrew naming ceremony for Dagny Frances. Returning late Monday. Have a great weekend.
On the way will be passing through Sanford. Hope the trip will not turn into another "Bonfire of The Vanities. " (See 2 below.)
----
Executive summary of what negotiations with N Korea and Iran have secured. For full report go to: http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1333022628.pdf (See 3 below.)
---
Should the wish beget the thought or the thought beget the wish. Frankly who cares as long as the opportunity for reset occurs. (See 4 below.)
John Podhoretz relishes over slap down for the La La La Liberals.
To a person they are shocked that Conservatives can defend their arguments and beliefs.
I am reminded of David Mamet's comments in his recent book I reviewed many memos ago when he pointed out that Liberals by their mere expression, ipso facto, it becomes true.
I believe it comes from Liberals thinking they can drink their own bath water as a substitute for logic. (See 4a below.)
---
Are Obama and his minions frightened Israel is getting prepared to attack Iran? Are they trying to head it off by leaking information? I believe Obama will stop at nothing to prevent Israel from attacking Iran and I also believe Obama intends to do nothing as well. So much for having Israel's back! (See 5 below.)
John Podhoretz relishes over slap down for the La La La Liberals.
To a person they are shocked that Conservatives can defend their arguments and beliefs.
I am reminded of David Mamet's comments in his recent book I reviewed many memos ago when he pointed out that Liberals by their mere expression, ipso facto, it becomes true.
I believe it comes from Liberals thinking they can drink their own bath water as a substitute for logic. (See 4a below.)
---
Are Obama and his minions frightened Israel is getting prepared to attack Iran? Are they trying to head it off by leaking information? I believe Obama will stop at nothing to prevent Israel from attacking Iran and I also believe Obama intends to do nothing as well. So much for having Israel's back! (See 5 below.)
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Yale’s Shiller: US Could Have Japanese-Style Housing Slump
“On a seasonally-adjusted basis, it’s just flat.”
The big question now, says Shiller, is if the market is poised to recover. “I give it a chance that it is,” he says, citing optimistic reports on consumer confidence and positive news on the employment front.
Shiller noted that many young people who might have been first time homebuyers are living with their parents instead of purchasing their own homes, and many others are opting to live in apartments and other rental housing.
Shiller says the shift toward renting and city living could mean “that we will never in our lifetime see a rebound in these prices in the suburbs.”
“If you’re young and you don’t need to buy, just think what kind of nice, new modern high rise apartment building, with all the exciting things built in you might get in the city. Maybe some people are thinking that way.”
“The big thing is that we haven’t resolved Fannie (Mae) and Freddie (Mac), says Shiller. “This inadequate demand you see is only there because of the government.”
Shiller says people sense that the market is becoming more and more political and are holding back. Technology plays a role as well: As we get better and better at making houses, prices go down. “People won’t want the old ones, so prices will decline,” Shiller says.
Investors, Shilling says, will do better to buying shares in a complex of some sort because “dispersed single family homes are a hard business model.”
Reuters reports there’s a growing list of big and small investors who see fat profits to be made in renting out foreclosed homes, especially now the U.S. government is moving ahead with a trial project to sell big pools of single-family homes that Fannie Mae currently owns in some of the hardest-hit housing markets.
A perpetually sluggish housing market, which Shiller believes has become “more and more political,” might push the country in a “Japan-like slump that will go on for years and years.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Trayvon Martin Case and the Rule of Law
By Robert WeissbergThe death of Florida black teenager Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman has generated millions of words, nearly all predictable (for example, see here). It is almost as if a contest is being held to see who could be the most outraged.
Unfortunately, this rhetorical outpouring displays a profound disregard to one of the cornerstones of American life, if not of Western civilization itself: a respect for the rule of law -- that is, the idea that explicit publicly known law, not personal views or impromptu whims, is decisive, and that these laws are applied systematically according to certain specified procedures with little room for individual discretion. Of the utmost importance, the law is applied regardless of personal characteristics -- that is, apart from sex, age, race, or wealth, unless special treatment is legally specified (e.g., the treatment of children).
Absolutely nobody is mounting the public soapbox and saying, "Yes, there may be an injustice here, but if there is one, it is best handled by the criminal justice system and not by irate, ill-informed demonstrators demanding that alleged culprits, including local law enforcement officials, be summarily punished without any legal safeguards." To be blunt, the Trayvon Martin incident increasingly resembles something one might expect in lawless Pakistan or Somalia -- enraged rabble marching through the streets searching from some alleged perpetrator of some rumored crime so as to dispense on-the-spot justice.
The most unfortunate aspect of this lapse is that prominent political figures who certainly must know better have embraced this mob mentality. President Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, offers perhaps the most egregious example of this "who needs tedious legal proceedings to achieve justice now?" mentality. He could have used his position to tell -- perhaps even lecture -- the American public that Martin's shooting had already been investigated by the police and that this process had numerous safeguards to insure that criminal acts were properly punished and that personal opinions about guilt or innocence should wait until all the relevant information is at hand.
Instead, as is well-known, he used his position to tell the American public that if he had a son, that son would be like Trayvon, as if this skin-deep resemblance exonerated Trayvon from any possible wrongdoing. Moreover, though Trayvon was depicted as a model student, Mr. Martin was killed while on a five-day suspension from school, and he had been suspended before on charges that included drug use and possession of burglary tools and women's jewelry. A little research would have shown him to be a troubled youngster -- not exactly an Obama Jr.
Moreover, recalling the O.J. Simpson case, the president might have advised the distraught Martin family to file a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman (or the home owners' association) rather than challenge a verdict about which he knew little.
The president also said that he welcomed a federal and state investigation into the shooting -- an odd call, since such shootings undoubtedly number in the tens of thousands every year, none of which receive federal scrutiny. The underlying "logic" here seems to be that the legal relationship between individual states and the federal government is not governed by the Constitution or laws made under the Constitution. Instead, this complex relationship is to be decided by (a) the racial characteristics of the alleged perpetrator and victim and (b) the emotional rage among people who generally have zero knowledge of what actually occurred, let alone of the Florida laws that guided the police inquest.
Imagine Professor Obama teaching the above "principle" to his law school students at the University of Chicago. Or, going one step farther and consistent with what President Obama has said, he would tell his students that if the first outcome does not placate those who disagree with it, instigate additional investigations until "justice is served." (The U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Florida are now conducting new investigations, and the more investigations launched, obviously, the greater the likelihood of finding something.)
President Obama is hardly alone in his pandering to the "verdict first, trial afterwards" crowd. Mitt Romney similarly called for a thorough investigation as if Florida in 2012 somehow resembled rural Mississippi of the 1930s, where black people could never receive fair treatment. Was Mr. Romney aware of some specific defects in the way the case was handled? Did locallaw enforcement hide evidence, intimidate eyewitnesses into silence, or otherwise improperly reach a conclusion of no crime committed? If Mitt knows of such injustices, it is his legal obligation to come forward with them.
Romney's rival, Rick Santorum, goes even farther in subordinating the rule of law to pandering. In his opinion, the police were wrong not to arrest the shooter, and law enforcement had made "horrible decisions" (his words) in handling the case. While I cannot say so for sure, I strongly suspect that when Rick Santorum spoke these words, he could not pass the Florida bar exam (let alone correctly interpret its 2005 "Stand Your Ground" Law). Nor did he have access to all the police records and legal precedents upon which all these "horrible decisions" were made.
The outrage surrounding the Trayvon Martin case is unsurprising. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can always be counted on to claim "genocide" or something equally preposterous whenever a black person is killed by a white, especially a white police officer. What is remarkable is that those who surely must know better (and this certainly includes President Obama and other elected officials) go along with this stir-the-racial-passions opportunism. It is almost as if they are ashamed of the American legal system when it reaches a decision that outrages many blacks. They are basically agreeing with firebrands who insist that American is so deeply racist that blacks can never get a fair shake, so don't even bother with sham legal proceedings -- the fix is in, so let's start the angry demonstrations now!
There is an incredible irony here that deserves mention: the rule of law is the great protector of racial and ethnic minorities. Undermining it to achieve a momentarily favorable judicial outcome is a horrific choice. Imagine the fate of African-Americans and Hispanics if verdicts in racially charged cases (for example, a gruesome interracial murder or a gang rape) were put to a popular vote? If one has any doubts about how such a system might work, just ask those NAACP lawyers who sought to advance black rights during the 1950s in the American South. It was an open secret that fairness was next to impossible in state and local courts, especially in jury cases. Civil rights lawyers knew that their only chance lay in getting their case into federal court, the Fifth Circuit, where largely Republican judges who enjoyed lifetime tenure could decide cases on their legal merits, not the whim of the locally elected district attorney afraid that locals voters would call him a n***er-lover.
Let me suggest that the next time black leaders like Jesse Jackson demand that African-Americans enjoy some special right to override the legal process to achieve "racial justice," they should be forced to read about the "Scottsboro Boys." Here nine young Alabama blacks were falsely accused of raping two white girls (a white witness later recanted his accusation). Nevertheless, there were three trials (two of which had all-white juries, and one jury had a single black). There were angry lynch mobs and calls for violence, and eight of the nine received a death sentence. Eventually, after these trials, four of the original nine were found guilty and given sentences ranging from 75 years to death. In retrospect, the entire process was clearly a miscarriage of justice, a textbook illustration of what can happen when the rule of law is subordinated to racial hate. It has taken centuries for many Americans to reap the benefits of the rule law; let's not surrender it so quickly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Decade of Diplomacy: Negotiations with Iran and North Korea and the Future
of Nuclear Nonproliferation
Memorandum No. 115 March 2012
Emily B. Landau
Institute for National Security Studies
Memorandum No. 115 March 2012
Emily B. Landau
Institute for National Security Studies
http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1333022628.pdf
Executive Summary
The overall purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of
diplomatic strategies as a means for confronting determined nuclear
proliferators: what is desirable, what is realistically feasible, and what
strong states must pay attention to in order to increase their prospects for
success.
diplomatic strategies as a means for confronting determined nuclear
proliferators: what is desirable, what is realistically feasible, and what
strong states must pay attention to in order to increase their prospects for
success.
The specific case studies examined here in a comparative framework are the
nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Diplomacy emerged as the strategy
of choice for dealing with these two prominent proliferators following the
military campaign launched in Iraq in 2003, especially when WMD were not
found. The analysis focuses on the diplomatic strategies and initiatives
that have been devised and implemented by strong international actors in
their attempts to curb the military intentions of both Iran and North Korea
over the past decade, beginning in 2002 – when both crises erupted almost
simultaneously – through the end of 2011.
nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Diplomacy emerged as the strategy
of choice for dealing with these two prominent proliferators following the
military campaign launched in Iraq in 2003, especially when WMD were not
found. The analysis focuses on the diplomatic strategies and initiatives
that have been devised and implemented by strong international actors in
their attempts to curb the military intentions of both Iran and North Korea
over the past decade, beginning in 2002 – when both crises erupted almost
simultaneously – through the end of 2011.
The assessment of the diplomatic strategies that were tailored to each of
the two proliferation challenges includes a comparison of the proliferators’
motivation and the nuclear games they have played; the strategies and skills
of the strong powers that confronted them (their degree of commitment to
negotiations, their degree of influence over the proliferators, and the
goals they were seeking to advance); the degree of leverage that the
proliferators themselves have had over the strong powers in the negotiations
framework; and the impact of the specific regional realities in each case,
especially the respective threat perceptions as well as regional politics
and balances of power.
the two proliferation challenges includes a comparison of the proliferators’
motivation and the nuclear games they have played; the strategies and skills
of the strong powers that confronted them (their degree of commitment to
negotiations, their degree of influence over the proliferators, and the
goals they were seeking to advance); the degree of leverage that the
proliferators themselves have had over the strong powers in the negotiations
framework; and the impact of the specific regional realities in each case,
especially the respective threat perceptions as well as regional politics
and balances of power.
In the case of Iran, the analysis reveals how Iran managed to gain the upper
hand in the negotiations dynamic – steadily pursuing its program according
to the principle of progress at maximum speed, but at minimum cost to itself
in terms of harsh measures from the international community. While four
rounds of UN sanctions were put in place over the period under
review, they suffered significant delays and were all watered down in order
to accommodate the positions of all members of the Security Council. Iran
began the process of dealing with the international community in 2002 from a
relatively weak position, and gained strength as the process unfolded. The
analysis focuses on the conditions that enabled Iran’s success: the
inability of the international community to bring its tremendous collective
power into play in an effective manner to confront Iran, and the skillful
manner in which Iran played the nuclear game.
hand in the negotiations dynamic – steadily pursuing its program according
to the principle of progress at maximum speed, but at minimum cost to itself
in terms of harsh measures from the international community. While four
rounds of UN sanctions were put in place over the period under
review, they suffered significant delays and were all watered down in order
to accommodate the positions of all members of the Security Council. Iran
began the process of dealing with the international community in 2002 from a
relatively weak position, and gained strength as the process unfolded. The
analysis focuses on the conditions that enabled Iran’s success: the
inability of the international community to bring its tremendous collective
power into play in an effective manner to confront Iran, and the skillful
manner in which Iran played the nuclear game.
With regard to North Korea, further along the road to a nuclear weapons
capability than Iran, the pattern that emerged over the past decade is one
of North Korea creating crisis situations in order to gain the attention of
the US in particular, followed by attempts to pressure the other side into
concluding a deal on North Korean terms. North Korea sought these deals for
their economic benefits, with the nuclear program fulfilling the role of a
reliable milking cow. North Korea has gained a reputation for backtracking
and reneging on deals that commit it to a process leading to disablement of
its nuclear capability, and then coming back to the negotiations table; the
prospect that it will give up this ongoing source of revenue is low.
Although Pyongyang has set its sights on bilateral negotiations with the
US – “nuclear state to nuclear state” – the latter has insisted on a
regional framework in order to increase its leverage over North Korea.
Indeed, since 2003, the regional context became part and parcel of efforts
to curb its nuclear ambitions through the Six-Party Talks. However, regional
talks have proven less effective than the US had hoped – additional concerns
from neighboring states have overburdened the nuclear agenda, and the
dynamic inevitably returns to the bilateral sphere.
capability than Iran, the pattern that emerged over the past decade is one
of North Korea creating crisis situations in order to gain the attention of
the US in particular, followed by attempts to pressure the other side into
concluding a deal on North Korean terms. North Korea sought these deals for
their economic benefits, with the nuclear program fulfilling the role of a
reliable milking cow. North Korea has gained a reputation for backtracking
and reneging on deals that commit it to a process leading to disablement of
its nuclear capability, and then coming back to the negotiations table; the
prospect that it will give up this ongoing source of revenue is low.
Although Pyongyang has set its sights on bilateral negotiations with the
US – “nuclear state to nuclear state” – the latter has insisted on a
regional framework in order to increase its leverage over North Korea.
Indeed, since 2003, the regional context became part and parcel of efforts
to curb its nuclear ambitions through the Six-Party Talks. However, regional
talks have proven less effective than the US had hoped – additional concerns
from neighboring states have overburdened the nuclear agenda, and the
dynamic inevitably returns to the bilateral sphere.
The comparison of these two cases reveals two determined proliferators that
have proven capable of keeping the international community at bay while
advancing their programs, resisting all attempts to convince or coerce them
to back down. The constraints on effective international action have played
out differently in each case, due to differences in the international
constellation of states as well as the behavior of each proliferator. The
regional frame that was chosen for North Korea – a weak state surrounded by
stronger neighbors – would be unthinkable as the context for dealing with
Iran, which is a strong power surrounded by weaker adjacent states.
have proven capable of keeping the international community at bay while
advancing their programs, resisting all attempts to convince or coerce them
to back down. The constraints on effective international action have played
out differently in each case, due to differences in the international
constellation of states as well as the behavior of each proliferator. The
regional frame that was chosen for North Korea – a weak state surrounded by
stronger neighbors – would be unthinkable as the context for dealing with
Iran, which is a strong power surrounded by weaker adjacent states.
The study concludes with some lessons for dealing with future cases of
nuclear proliferation. Among them: strong states are cautioned that when
carving out a negotiations strategy, they should avoid regarding the
diplomatic approach as “engagement” and “confidence-building,” or equating
it with a “soft” approach. When the challenge is tough – as it necessarily
is in the case of advanced and determined proliferators who have cheated on
their international commitments – negotiations will be an exercise in
hardball. A major structural imbalance in the negotiations setting that
works to the advantage of the proliferator must be overcome by the strong
states. This refers to the fact that the strong state negotiators are
dependent on a negotiated outcome to achieve their goal, whereas the
proliferators have no need for negotiations, and can proceed unilaterally to
their goal of nuclear weapons. Steps must be taken by the international
negotiators to make the proliferator more dependent on a negotiated outcome,
to ensure that it is negotiating for the purpose of actually reaching a
deal. This will most likely require strong pressure on the proliferator, and
the negotiators must recognize that such pressure – sanctions, threats of
military force, and similar measures – are not a separate track from
diplomacy, but rather have a crucial role to play in the overall
negotiations strategy. It must be recognized that time is on the side of the
proliferator. The longer it takes to get to serious negotiations, the more
progress will have been made that will then be difficult to reverse. Time
wasted by the international community cannot be regained, and what yesterday
was viewed as “inconceivable” is today the new starting place for talks.
nuclear proliferation. Among them: strong states are cautioned that when
carving out a negotiations strategy, they should avoid regarding the
diplomatic approach as “engagement” and “confidence-building,” or equating
it with a “soft” approach. When the challenge is tough – as it necessarily
is in the case of advanced and determined proliferators who have cheated on
their international commitments – negotiations will be an exercise in
hardball. A major structural imbalance in the negotiations setting that
works to the advantage of the proliferator must be overcome by the strong
states. This refers to the fact that the strong state negotiators are
dependent on a negotiated outcome to achieve their goal, whereas the
proliferators have no need for negotiations, and can proceed unilaterally to
their goal of nuclear weapons. Steps must be taken by the international
negotiators to make the proliferator more dependent on a negotiated outcome,
to ensure that it is negotiating for the purpose of actually reaching a
deal. This will most likely require strong pressure on the proliferator, and
the negotiators must recognize that such pressure – sanctions, threats of
military force, and similar measures – are not a separate track from
diplomacy, but rather have a crucial role to play in the overall
negotiations strategy. It must be recognized that time is on the side of the
proliferator. The longer it takes to get to serious negotiations, the more
progress will have been made that will then be difficult to reverse. Time
wasted by the international community cannot be regained, and what yesterday
was viewed as “inconceivable” is today the new starting place for talks.
The final section assesses more general implications for the future of
nonproliferation efforts, especially in light of the exposed weakness of the
NPT as a tool for stopping a determined proliferator. It assesses what has
emerged over the past two decades as the real choice for states that wish to
stop a determined proliferator that is cheating on its NPT commitment:
military force or diplomacy. It looks at some implications, including the
question of who decides which road to pursue.
nonproliferation efforts, especially in light of the exposed weakness of the
NPT as a tool for stopping a determined proliferator. It assesses what has
emerged over the past two decades as the real choice for states that wish to
stop a determined proliferator that is cheating on its NPT commitment:
military force or diplomacy. It looks at some implications, including the
question of who decides which road to pursue.
======
Selecting a Strategy: Military Force or Negotiations?
If global disarmament trends and treaties such as the NPT are not the answer
to today’s nuclear proliferators, and if instead strong states step in to
confront each proliferator as it surfaces, then the relevant question is
what policy these states should adopt in each case. Which works better:
military force or negotiations?
to today’s nuclear proliferators, and if instead strong states step in to
confront each proliferator as it surfaces, then the relevant question is
what policy these states should adopt in each case. Which works better:
military force or negotiations?
In the aftermath of the war in Iraq military force appeared a bad choice,
but the primary reason that this war was viewed negatively is that WMD were
not eventually found. Had they been found and destroyed during the war, the
criticism would most likely have been much more muted. Indeed, the major
lasting lesson from the Iraq War is that intelligence assessments cannot be
trusted. This uncertainty has also been a constraint in dealing with Iran.
The unavoidable conclusion from observing close to a decade of diplomacy
and negotiations with both Iran and North Korea is that the alternative
policy of negotiations has not fared much better. In fact, negotiations have
utterly failed as a strategy for persuading these determined proliferators
to reverse course.
but the primary reason that this war was viewed negatively is that WMD were
not eventually found. Had they been found and destroyed during the war, the
criticism would most likely have been much more muted. Indeed, the major
lasting lesson from the Iraq War is that intelligence assessments cannot be
trusted. This uncertainty has also been a constraint in dealing with Iran.
The unavoidable conclusion from observing close to a decade of diplomacy
and negotiations with both Iran and North Korea is that the alternative
policy of negotiations has not fared much better. In fact, negotiations have
utterly failed as a strategy for persuading these determined proliferators
to reverse course.
In looking back over the past decade, there were only two nonproliferation
success stories: the US/British deal with Libya from December 2003 that led
to rollback of all Libya’s WMD programs11 and the September 2007 military
attack on Syria’s nuclear facility. Negotiations most likely worked in the
Libyan case because, after years of sanctions, there were strong economic
considerations at work, and because Libya feared being next in line for US
military attack after Iraq...
success stories: the US/British deal with Libya from December 2003 that led
to rollback of all Libya’s WMD programs11 and the September 2007 military
attack on Syria’s nuclear facility. Negotiations most likely worked in the
Libyan case because, after years of sanctions, there were strong economic
considerations at work, and because Libya feared being next in line for US
military attack after Iraq...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Court Likely To Overturn ObamaCare After Hearings
Justice: After three days of listening to the government make its case for ObamaCare, one thing is clear: The individual mandate has no constitutional basis or justification, and the entire law should be struck down.
We almost felt sorry for Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general who had to defend the constitutionally indefensible. Over three days of intense interrogation by nine Supreme Court justices, Verrilli failed to muster a single coherent, reasonable argument in support of the ObamaCare law's constitutionality.
Instead, his shambling, unfocused talking points left the government case in disarray — underscoring what a poorly conceived, badly designed law this was in the first place, and why it must be overturned.
In Verrilli's defense, we don't think even Clarence Darrow could have defended a law that runs so afoul of the Constitution's clear limits on government power.
From the very start on Monday, things went badly for the defense. Justices actually laughed at Verrilli as he tried to argue that penalties imposed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act weren't taxes — but rather something new called a "tax penalty."
If it's not a tax, it could be subject to the Anti-Injunction Act, which could delay or even invalidate parts of the health care law. If it is a tax, it blows away all pretense of ObamaCare preserving private insurance.
"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," joked Justice Samuel Alito. "Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax." Even liberal justices laughed.
Tuesday went no better. The government asserted the Constitution's Commerce Clause lets it regulate or control virtually anything, including health care — especially if it has a broad economic impact. Thus, a first-ever individual mandate to buy health care is acceptable.
Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
But sharp questioning by justices on both sides of the political spectrum splintered that argument. At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered aloud, if the government can make you buy health care insurance, can't it also make you buy a cellphone?
By Wednesday, the government's case was in tatters. A Los Angeles Times headline said bluntly: "Justices Poised To Strike Down Entire Healthcare Law."
Indeed, the justices spent 91 minutes Wednesday considering what to do if the 2,700-page law was struck down in its entirety. Based on comments, at least five justices now appear to support doing that.
And they should. Contrary to White House assertions, our Constitution strictly limits government power over us. It's the great genius of our system.
But for over a century, American progressives such as President Obama have worked to undermine those constitutional limits — opting instead for a "living," ever-malleable Constitution that lets an omnipotent government define individual rights.
Overturning ObamaCare would be a big step toward reclaiming sovereignty over our own lives and restoring the rule of law in America.
4a)A supreme shock for ‘La-La’ libs
By John Podhoretz
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.
This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.
Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN confidently asserted on Charlie Rose at the beginning of the week that the court would rule 7-2, maybe even 8-1 in favor of ObamaCare. The previous week, he called the anti-ObamaCare arguments “really weak.”
His view was echoed by an equally confident op-ed assertion by the veteran court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who in The New York Times declared the case against ObamaCare “analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection.”
It was quite a change, then, to see Toobin emerge almost hysterical from the Supreme Court chamber after two hours of argument on Tuesday and declare the proceedings “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”
Yesterday, after another two hours of argument, he suggested it might even be a “plane wreck.”
That was the general consensus across the board. It held that the two lawyers arguing against ObamaCare — Paul Clement and Michael Carvin — were dazzlingly effective, while the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, put in a mediocre performance.
True enough. But here’s the thing: There was nothing new in what Clement and Carvin said.
Their arguments were featured in briefs already submitted to the court and available for general inspection. And they’d already been given weight by the two
judicial opinions against the constitutionality of ObamaCare issued by federal district court judges — one by Henry Hudson in Virginia in December 2010, the other by Roger Vinson in Florida in January 2011.
The briefs exist. The decisions exist. You can Google them. They are strong, fluent, well-reasoned and legitimate. They take ObamaCare seriously, and they argue against it at the highest possible level.
Thus, the strength of the conservative arguments only came as a surprise to Toobin, Greenhouse and others because they evidently spent two years putting their fingers in their ears and singing, “La la la, I’m not listening” whenever the conservative argument was being advanced.
This is not to say that the pro-ObamaCare side had no arguments. It had plenty of arguments, and by far the most important interlocutor on its behalf was Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her perceptive and crystal-clear questioning of Clement and Carvin should put to rest forever the idea (spread both by liberals and conservatives) that she is intellectually unworthy to serve on the nation’s highest court.
The defense of ObamaCare’s constitutionality relies mainly on the truism that everyone is sure to get sick at some point in their lives, and this makes the health-care market unlike any other market. For the liberals, this fact — bolstered by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause — gives Congress the power to compel every adult in the nation to buy a private health-insurance policy.
The attack on ObamaCare was that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to force a private citizen into a private contractual relationship. If such a thing is permitted to stand, the anti-ObamaCare forces argue, there will be no limit to Congress’s power in the future.
There’s no telling which of 10 possible ways the high court will finally rule. But one thing is for certain: There will again come a time when liberals and conservatives disagree on a fundamental intellectual matter. Conservatives will take liberals and their arguments seriously and try to find the best way to argue the other side.
And the liberals will put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Israelis Suspect Obama Media Leaks to Prevent Strike on Iran
By Alexander Marquardt
4)Court Likely To Overturn ObamaCare After Hearings
Justice: After three days of listening to the government make its case for ObamaCare, one thing is clear: The individual mandate has no constitutional basis or justification, and the entire law should be struck down.
We almost felt sorry for Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general who had to defend the constitutionally indefensible. Over three days of intense interrogation by nine Supreme Court justices, Verrilli failed to muster a single coherent, reasonable argument in support of the ObamaCare law's constitutionality.
Instead, his shambling, unfocused talking points left the government case in disarray — underscoring what a poorly conceived, badly designed law this was in the first place, and why it must be overturned.
In Verrilli's defense, we don't think even Clarence Darrow could have defended a law that runs so afoul of the Constitution's clear limits on government power.
From the very start on Monday, things went badly for the defense. Justices actually laughed at Verrilli as he tried to argue that penalties imposed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act weren't taxes — but rather something new called a "tax penalty."
If it's not a tax, it could be subject to the Anti-Injunction Act, which could delay or even invalidate parts of the health care law. If it is a tax, it blows away all pretense of ObamaCare preserving private insurance.
"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," joked Justice Samuel Alito. "Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax." Even liberal justices laughed.
Tuesday went no better. The government asserted the Constitution's Commerce Clause lets it regulate or control virtually anything, including health care — especially if it has a broad economic impact. Thus, a first-ever individual mandate to buy health care is acceptable.
Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
But sharp questioning by justices on both sides of the political spectrum splintered that argument. At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered aloud, if the government can make you buy health care insurance, can't it also make you buy a cellphone?
By Wednesday, the government's case was in tatters. A Los Angeles Times headline said bluntly: "Justices Poised To Strike Down Entire Healthcare Law."
Indeed, the justices spent 91 minutes Wednesday considering what to do if the 2,700-page law was struck down in its entirety. Based on comments, at least five justices now appear to support doing that.
And they should. Contrary to White House assertions, our Constitution strictly limits government power over us. It's the great genius of our system.
But for over a century, American progressives such as President Obama have worked to undermine those constitutional limits — opting instead for a "living," ever-malleable Constitution that lets an omnipotent government define individual rights.
Overturning ObamaCare would be a big step toward reclaiming sovereignty over our own lives and restoring the rule of law in America.
4a)A supreme shock for ‘La-La’ libs
By John Podhoretz
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.
This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.
Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN confidently asserted on Charlie Rose at the beginning of the week that the court would rule 7-2, maybe even 8-1 in favor of ObamaCare. The previous week, he called the anti-ObamaCare arguments “really weak.”
His view was echoed by an equally confident op-ed assertion by the veteran court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who in The New York Times declared the case against ObamaCare “analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection.”
It was quite a change, then, to see Toobin emerge almost hysterical from the Supreme Court chamber after two hours of argument on Tuesday and declare the proceedings “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”
Yesterday, after another two hours of argument, he suggested it might even be a “plane wreck.”
That was the general consensus across the board. It held that the two lawyers arguing against ObamaCare — Paul Clement and Michael Carvin — were dazzlingly effective, while the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, put in a mediocre performance.
True enough. But here’s the thing: There was nothing new in what Clement and Carvin said.
Their arguments were featured in briefs already submitted to the court and available for general inspection. And they’d already been given weight by the two
judicial opinions against the constitutionality of ObamaCare issued by federal district court judges — one by Henry Hudson in Virginia in December 2010, the other by Roger Vinson in Florida in January 2011.
The briefs exist. The decisions exist. You can Google them. They are strong, fluent, well-reasoned and legitimate. They take ObamaCare seriously, and they argue against it at the highest possible level.
Thus, the strength of the conservative arguments only came as a surprise to Toobin, Greenhouse and others because they evidently spent two years putting their fingers in their ears and singing, “La la la, I’m not listening” whenever the conservative argument was being advanced.
This is not to say that the pro-ObamaCare side had no arguments. It had plenty of arguments, and by far the most important interlocutor on its behalf was Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her perceptive and crystal-clear questioning of Clement and Carvin should put to rest forever the idea (spread both by liberals and conservatives) that she is intellectually unworthy to serve on the nation’s highest court.
The defense of ObamaCare’s constitutionality relies mainly on the truism that everyone is sure to get sick at some point in their lives, and this makes the health-care market unlike any other market. For the liberals, this fact — bolstered by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause — gives Congress the power to compel every adult in the nation to buy a private health-insurance policy.
The attack on ObamaCare was that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to force a private citizen into a private contractual relationship. If such a thing is permitted to stand, the anti-ObamaCare forces argue, there will be no limit to Congress’s power in the future.
There’s no telling which of 10 possible ways the high court will finally rule. But one thing is for certain: There will again come a time when liberals and conservatives disagree on a fundamental intellectual matter. Conservatives will take liberals and their arguments seriously and try to find the best way to argue the other side.
And the liberals will put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Israelis Suspect Obama Media Leaks to Prevent Strike on Iran
By Alexander Marquardt
JERUSALEM - Two reports today about Iran's nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks.
The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous American officials saying that Israel has been given access to airbases by Iran's northern neighbor Azerbaijan from which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and search and rescue aircraft.
The second report from Bloomberg, based on a leaked congressional report, said that Iran's nuclear facilities are so dispersed that it is "unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be…" A strike could delay Iran as little as six months, a former official told the researchers.
"It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking," analyst Yoel Guzansky at the Institute for National Security Studies told ABC News. "I think the [Obama] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They're trying hard to prevent it in so many ways."
The Foreign Policy report by Mark Perry quotes an intelligence officer saying, "We're watching what Iran does closely…But we're now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it."
If true, the deal with Azerbaijan "totally changes the whole picture," says Guzansky, making it far easier for Israel to strike faster and harder, rather than having to fly 2,200 miles to Iran and back over Iraqi airspace.
Thursday's reports come a week after the results of a classified war game was leaked to the New York Times which predicted that an Israeli strike could lead to a wider regional war and result in hundreds of American deaths. In a column this afternoon titled "Obama Betraying Israel?" longtime defense commentator Ron Ben-Yishai at Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper angrily denounced the leaks as a "targeted assassination campaign."
"In recent weeks the administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel's public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran," Ben-Yishai writes. "The campaign's aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to carry out a strike, and what's even graver, to erode the IDF's capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties."
Ben-Yishai says much of the information in the reports has either been published or is simply wrong, but in the case of the Bloomberg report on American knowledge of Iran's nuclear facilities, "instead of forcing the Iranians to piece together all the assessments themselves, the Congress report offers them everything in one place."
The reports pressure both Israel and Iran, fellow Yedioth columnist and military analyst Alex Fishman told ABC News, but he doesn't buy into the theory that Azerbaijan will be a base for potential Israeli operations.
"I don't believe that there's news behind this story because it doesn't make sense. It's very romantic, very John le Carre, but less practical," he says, explaining that the airstrips as they are now are far too basic for a "huge wing of airplanes."
The report's purpose is "to show the Iranians that something is going on, to make them much more suspicious, much more nervous. You need this pressure in order to put them in a lower position when negotiations start."
Iran has agreed to international nuclear talks next month, negotiations that the U.S. hopes will help avert a conflict but that Israel dismisses as a stalling tactic by Iran. Asked whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees the reports as pressure from the Obama administration, an Israeli official indicated that they fall into the very category of "loose talk" of war that President Obama recently criticized.
"When we [Netanyahu's office] were in Washington [in early March], President Obama called publicly for people to tone down the rhetoric," said the official. "The prime minister has called on ministers not to talk. We agree with Obama that loose talk is not doing anyone any favors."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment