Iraq’s Decline into Chaos Traces Back to 2011, Not 2003 by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

State coalition so grandly proclaimed by the Obama administration is nowhere to be seen. Instead, it’s the defense minister of Iran who flies into Baghdad, an unsubtle demonstration of who’s in charge — while the U.S. air campaign proves futile and America’s alleged strategy for combating the Islamic State is in free fall. It gets worse. The Gulf States’ top leaders, betrayed and bitter, ostentatiously boycott President Obama’s failed Camp David summit. “We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” laments Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief.

Note: “were,” not “are.” We are scraping bottom. Following six years of President Obama’s steady and determined withdrawal from the Middle East, America’s standing in the region has collapsed. And yet the question incessantly asked of the various presidential candidates is not about that. It’s a retrospective hypothetical: Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if you had known then what we know now? RELATED: Obama’s Ludicrous Middle East Policy First, the question is not just a hypothetical, but an inherently impossible hypothetical. It contradicts itself. Had we known there were no weapons of mass destruction, the very question would not have arisen. The premise of the war — the basis for going to the U.N., to the Congress, and, indeed, to the nation — was Iraq’s possession of WMD in violation of the central condition for the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. No WMD, no hypothetical to answer in the first place. Second, the “if you knew then” question implicitly locates the origin and cause of the current disasters in 2003. As if the fall of Ramadi was predetermined then, as if the author of the current regional collapse is George W. Bush.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Obama official once said train-safety cost outweighed benefit

WASHINGTON -- When a Republican lawmaker in 2011 asked an Obama administration Office of Management and Budget official to name regulations where costs were not justified by benefits, the official had a ready answer.

"There is only one big one that comes to mind," said Cass Sunstein, then administrator of the White House OMB's Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs. "It is called Positive Train Control.''

Even though the regulations for the $13.2 billion rail-safety system were mandated by Congress, "monetizable benefits are lower than the monetizable costs," Sunstein told then Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., at a House Energy & Commerce subcommittee hearing. "There aren't a lot like that.''

Four years later, those words may come back to haunt the Barack Obama White House and Sunstein, who has since returned to teaching law at Harvard. Safety investigators are still trying to piece together how an Amtrak train went off the track in Philadelphia last week, killing eight. It was a crash that a National Transportation Safety Board member, Robert Sumwalt, said might have been prevented had PTC been fully operational.

Sunstein's pooh-poohing of PTC in 2011 is all the more remarkable because the Obama administration's efforts to push forward regulations in a variety of areas -- notably air pollution and climate change -- against Republican accusations that they would cripple the economy.

Via: CTPost

Continue Reading....

The Minimum Wage and the Rise of the Machines

After you heard President Obama’s call for a hike in the minimum wage, you probably wondered the same thing I did: Was Obama sent from the future by Skynet to prepare humanity for its ultimate dominion by robots?

But just in case the question didn’t occur to you, let me explain. On Tuesday, the day before Obama called for an increase in the minimum wage, the restaurant chain Applebee’s announced that it will install iPad-like tablets at every table. Chili’s already made this move earlier this year. 

With these consoles customers will be able to order their meals and pay their checks without dealing with a waiter or waitress. Both companies insist that they won’t be changing their staffing levels, but if you’ve read any science fiction, you know that’s what the masterminds of every robot takeover say: “We’re here to help. We’re not a threat.”

But the fact is, the tablets are a threat. In 2011, Annie Lowrey wrote about the burgeoning tablet-as-waiter business. She focused on a startup firm called E La Carte, which makes a table tablet called Presto. “Each console goes for $100 per month. If a restaurant serves meals eight hours a day, seven days a week, it works out to 42 cents per hour per table — making the Presto cheaper than even the very cheapest waiter. Moreover, no manager needs to train it, replace it if it quits, or offer it sick days. And it doesn’t forget to take off the cheese, walk off for 20 minutes, or accidentally offend with small talk, either.”

Via: NRO

Continue Reading....

AFTER DENYING THEY MET, WHITE HOUSE ADMITS OBAMA LIVED WITH UNCLE

In yet another example of White House dissembling and our subservient media rolling over, the White House admitted Thursday that President Obama not only knows a Kenyan uncle who faced deportation, but that the president lived with this uncle in the eighties. When asked in 2011, the White House said there was no record of the two ever meeting. Apparently, our crackerjack media accepted that false information without ever following up or even asking if the president had been asked.

The Boston Globe reports that at a recent deportation hearing, the president's uncle, Onyango Obama, testified that "his famous nephew had stayed at his Cambridge apartment for about three weeks. At the time, Onyango Obama was here illegally and fighting deportation."

Obviously, this testimony directly contradicted the 2011 statement from the White House. Faced with the contradiction, the White house offered the following explanation:

[T]he press office had not fully researched the relationship between the president and his uncle before telling the Globe that they had no record of the two meeting. This time, the press office asked the president directly, which they had not done in 2011.

Only with a Democrat in office would "we have no record of the two meeting" not sound like a non-answer answer to the media. And once again it wasn't our media that dug up an Obama scandal or embarrassment; in this case it was the uncle.

During his briefing Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that he personally chose to ask the president about the relationship. The Boston Globe adds:

“The President first met Omar Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “The President did stay with him for a brief period of time until his apartment was ready. After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch. The President has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Report: Feds spent $4.4 BILLION on state Obamacare exchanges

Data compiled and released Friday by the conservative organization Americans for Tax Reform reveals the amount of federal tax dollars funneled to states to implement Obamacare exchanges at $4.4 billion.

According to ATR, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services distributed the funds to states for a variety of “vague” purposes.

ATR pulled out grant purposes such as:

• “[P]reparations to demonstrate operational readiness”
• “Provide assistance to hire staff and consultants”
• “Continue and complete current planning and implementation efforts”
• “Secure staff consultants and expert resources and actively engage stakeholders”
• “Marketplace IT system design and development costs including IT consultants and privacy and security consultants”

States that did not end up setting up there own Obamacare exchanges also received money, according to ATR’s research.

Alabama for example, received $9,772,451 in two grants in 2010 and 2011 one for planning the exchange and the other to “support core staff, contracts, and activities around early implementation of the Alabama Health Insurance Exchange.”

Many of the states that did end up creating their own exchanges received more money than those that did not.

ATR’s tax policy director Ryan Ellis told The Daily Caller that it was not clear from CMS’ records what ended up happening to the money provided to states to set up exchanges that in the end decided not establish their own exchange.

“Presumably, [the funding] was to try to get those states to change their mind at an earlier stage of development,” Ellis wrote in an email.

Via Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Voter turnout in Texas nearly doubles under new ID law

The first Texas elections under a contentious new photo ID law drew interesting conclusions for an off-year election that normally draws a low amount of voters.

There were nine proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution, and the number of votes tallied was nearly double what it was in 2011. Democrats and civil rights groups have long argued that voter ID requirements suppress turnout, particularly in poor and minority communities.

All nine measures were approved during this election, and dealt primarily with taxes and state budgets, according to Ballot Pedia.

Taxes and state budgets were also the most popular ballot measures for 2011, but the voter ID law had not been passed during that election.

Statewide, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on those 10 constitutional amendments in 2011. In 2013, the number of votes cast in Texas reached 1,099,670.

In Hidalgo County, which is 90 percent Hispanic, just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election in 2011. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted according to the Texas secretary of state’s office.

Greg Abbott, the Republican attorney general and likely governor nominee, stated that critics of the voter ID law had “run out of claims” about those struggling to vote without an ID.

That hasn’t stopped opponents of the voter ID law from continuing their mission to get the law thrown out. The Houston Chronicle reports that the Justice Department, civil rights groups and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey have filed a federal lawsuit to get the law overturned.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

US sees 25 percent surge in women hunters since 2006

The number of American women spending time hunting has spiked 25 percent between 2006 and 2011.

According to Census Bureau statistics cited by National Geographic, while men still make up the majority of the 13.7 million hunters in the United States, 11 percent are women.

Many states, the magazine reports, are now hosting workshops, titled “Becoming An Outdoors-Woman” (BOW), which instruct participants in archery, shotgun and rifle shooting.

"There is definitely a high demand. We have over 3,000 women on our mailing list, and workshops fill up quickly," Patricia Handy, information and education program manager at the Department of Natural Resources in Maryland, told National Geographic.

Minnesota has followed the national trend; the state granted 72,000 hunting licenses to women last year, up from 50,000 in 2000, CBS Minnesota reports.

According to the station, the spike in women hunters also has led retailers to market smaller firearms and outdoor gear specifically to women.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

READ THE CHILLING NOTE SENT TO GOV. SCOTT WALKER’S WIFE

It’s no secret that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is intensely disliked by organized labor and Democrats.

Image source: Amazon

Indeed, the Republican governor’s opponents have made their feelings toward him very clear since he was first elected — especially during the state capital protests in 2011 and the defeated effort to have him recalled.

But if you thought the rhetoric aimed at Walker during the 2011 protests was bad, just wait until you hear his version of events included in his upcoming book, “Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge” — particularly the chilling note that was sent to his wife.

State Patrol Capt. Dave Erwin, a former United States Marine, brought the governor a particularly eerie piece of hate mail during the protests that contained very specific information about his wife and children.

“[A]s I prepared to go out to the conference room for my daily press briefing, Dave came into my office and shut the door,” Walker recalls, according to a book excerpt published online.

“Sir, I don’t show you most of these, but I thought you ought to see this one,” the officer said.

The letter was addressed to Walker’s wife, Tonette. It read:

Has Wisconsin ever had a governor assassinated? Scotts heading that way. Or maybe one of your sons getting killed would hurt him more. I want him to feel the pain. I already follow them when they went to school in Wauwatosa, so it won’t be too hard to find them in Mad. Town. Big change from that house by [BLANK] Ave. to what you got now. Just let him know that it’s not right to [EXPLETIVE] over all those people. Or maybe I could find one of the Tarantinos [Tonette’s parents] back here.

Via: The Blaze
Continue Reading..... 

Budget deal BLOWS THROUGH the mandated sequester spending caps

WASHINGTON — Announcing the budget deal he reached with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday he was thankful Republicans were at least able to keep in place the automatic spending cuts that went into effect across government agencies earlier this year.

“That’s been a top priority for me and my Republican colleagues throughout this debate,” the Senate Minority Leader said on the floor of the Senate, referencing what’s known as the sequester. “And it’s been worth the effort.”

But while the deal freezes in place current spending numbers, the budget deal actually blows through the sequester spending caps that were supposed to go into effect on Oct. 1 — by nearly $20 billion.

Here are the numbers: The Budget Control Act of 2011 created the automatic spending cuts across the government, mandating a discretionary budget in fiscal year 2013 of $986 billion.

On Oct. 1, more sequester cuts were supposed to bring the discretionary budget down to $967 billion for fiscal year 2014.

But the amount of the spending cap in the McConnell-Reid deal for the next three months is frozen temporarily at $986 billion — $19 billion more than the government is supposed to be able to spend this fiscal year.

Defenders of McConnell point out that at least his deal stopped Democrats from completely killing these automatic spending cuts. President Barack Obama and Harry Reid want to do away with them and increase the budget to $1.058 trillion.

The freezing of the spending cuts comes as conservative note that the sequester has actually been successful in reducing government. Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore put it this way in August: “The biggest underreported story out of Washington this year is that the federal budget is shrinking and much more than anyone in either party expected.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.....

The sequester: The hammer Republicans hold

Liberals constantly lecture, more in theatrical sorrow than in actual anger, about their eagerness to compromise with Republicans, just not with Republicans who are — liberal moderation expresses itself immoderately — hostage-taking terroristic anarchistic jihadist suicide bombers. But Maine’s Republican Sen. Susan Collins, the very model of moderation, spoiled the Democrats’ piety charade by demonstrating its insincerity when she suggestedthis compromise:

Republicans would support a continuing resolution that funds the government for six months at the “sequester” levels of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was produced by that year’s debt-ceiling negotiations. Republicans would also support raising the debt ceiling to enable the government to borrow enough to finance the substantial deficit spending involved in even sequester-level spending. (The sequester’s supposed severity does not come close to balancing the budget.) Republicans also would grant agencies greater flexibility in administering the sequester’s cuts.

In exchange, Collins asked for only two things. First, a mere delay, and for just two years, of Obamacare’s medical-device tax, which is so “stupid” — Sen. Harry Reid’s characterization — that bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress favor outright repeal. Second, enforcement of income-verification criteria for those seeking Obamacare’s insurance subsidies — criteria the administration wrote but waived.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

AP Headline Claims Social Security Inflation Increase Will Be 'Among Lowest in Years,' When 2010 and 2011 Had No Increase at All

There was no annual adjustment to Social Security benefits for inflation during 2010 or 2011. That's because the 2009 increase of 5.8 percent (announced in November 2008, and considered the "2009" increase at this table) was artifically lifted by the $4 per gallon gas prices seen in the summer of 2008, the period used in the annual inflation adjustment calculation. After gas prices came down, overall prices levels were slightly lower during the next two years.

With that background, it's hard to imagine how a headline writer at the Associated Press, aka the Adminstration's Press, could transform what writer Stephen Ohlemacher accurately described as an "historically small increase" to "among the lowest in years" — unless it's to create a false impression among those who only read headlines that the government is being unduly stingy in disbursing benefits. Excerpts from Ohlemacher's report follow the jump (bolds are mine):

SOCIAL SECURITY RAISE TO BE AMONG LOWEST IN YEARS

For the second straight year, millions of Social Security recipients, disabled veterans and federal retirees can expect historically small increases in their benefits come January.

Preliminary figures suggest a benefit increase of roughly 1.5 percent, which would be among the smallest since automatic increases were adopted in 1975, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Next year's raise will be small because consumer prices, as measured by the government, haven't gone up much in the past year.

... Nearly 58 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get Social Security benefits. The average monthly payment is $1,162. A 1.5 percent raise would increase the typical monthly payment by about $17.

The COLA also affects benefits for more than 3 million disabled veterans, about 2.5 million federal retirees and their survivors, and more than 8 million people who get Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for the poor.

Automatic COLAs were adopted so that benefits for people on fixed incomes would keep up with rising prices. Many seniors, however, complain that the COLA sometimes falls short, leaving them little wiggle room.

Since 1975, annual Social Security raises have averaged 4.1 percent. Only six times have they been less than 2 percent, including this year, when the increase was 1.7 percent. There was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low.

The final bolded paragraph above is convenient framing. It is also likely that "many seniors" find that the increases are either adequate or not relevant. But the complainers get the ink and bandwidth. And of course, you can forget about AP reminding readers of Social Security's permanent cash-flow deficit or long-term unsustainability.

Ohlemacher's narrative only implies an important truth about 2010 and 2011. Because the 2009 increase was so large and did not get reduced when overall prices went down, beneficiaries on an overall basis received more in benefits than they needed to maintain their standard of living during the next two years.

But to reiterate the main point: Only two years removed from two consecutive years of no increased at the all, the AP story's headline describing the anticipated 2014 as the "lowest in years" is extraordinarily weak.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

No Retreat, No Surrender

Republicans have partially planned and partially blundered into a government shutdown, and they appear to have no clear exit strategy. For now, many of them think it has become a test of their manhood. If they blink and pass a “clean” spending bill, they will lose face and enter talks over the looming mid-October debt-ceiling fight in a weakened position.

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” Representative Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican, told the Washington Examiner. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” That kind of thinking doesn’t inspire confidence.

Timing is everything. For now, Republicans are holding together, but in about a week the financial markets are likely to go down, putting immense pressure on Republicans to abandon the shutdown fight. In 2011, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 15 percent over a three-week period during that fall’s budget and debt-ceiling fight.

Deeply ingrained in the psyche of every congressional Republican is the government shutdown of 1995, for which Republicans were blamed. While many Republicans now believe the shutdown was a mistake, more think the problem was that the party lost its nerve.

Former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos, now host of ABC’s This Week, has validated that view. In his memoir, he wrote that Democrats, until then holding out against the Republicans’ budget-limiting efforts, were close to blinking. “Clinton was grumpy, the rest of us were grim,” until suddenly news came that Senate majority leader Bob Dole and House speaker Newt Gingrich were blinking first. “Whether the cause was hubris, naïveté, or a failure of nerve,” Stephanopoulos explained, “the Republicans had blown their best chance to splinter our party; from that point on, everything started breaking our way.”

Via: National Review Online

Continue Reading....