It’s Friday, September 6th, 2013…and here’s The Gouge!

First up, Michael Barone details an undeniable truth Liberals refuse to recognize:

Obama’s miscues on Syria diminish America’s standing in the world

 

Obama’s version of the Three Stooges

Blunder after blunder. That’s been the story of Barack Obama’s policy toward Syria. In April 2011, Obama said dictator Bashar Assad “had to go.” But he did little or nothing to speed him on his way.

At an Aug. 20, 2012, press conference, in campaign season, he was asked about Syria’s chemical weapons and said “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.” On Aug. 21, 2013, a year and a day afterwards, chemical weapons were used in large quantities in the Damascus suburbs a 20-minute drive from United Nations inspectors.

Last week all signs — strong statements by Secretary of State John Kerry, leaks of detailed military plans — indicated that Obama would soon order what he described as “a shot across the bow.” But on Saturday, Aug. 31, he announced that he would ask Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force — even though he believed he had authority to do it unilaterally. That means delay until Congress assembles Sept. 9 — time for Assad to put his military assets out of harm’s way.

There are strong arguments for voting against a resolution, the exact wording of which is not established at this writing. Obama’s “limited, tailored” approach seems certain not to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons and may well not deter him from using them. And we have the president’s word that he is not seeking “regime change.” And in the unlikely event that air strikes do undermine the Assad regime, we have no assurance that an alternative would be preferable. Al Qaeda sympathizers may gain the upper hand.

At the same time, there are strong arguments against a vote against a resolution. Undermining the power of even a feckless American president risks undermining the power of the presidency — and of America — for years. Crossing a president’s “red line,” however improvidently drawn, should carry consequences, however limited.

Many in Congress, and not just Republicans, surely resent being called upon to authorize an action which public opinion polls indicate is widely unpopular, particularly among the Independent voters who can determine election outcomes in many states and congressional districts. If a vote were taken this week, the resolution would be rejected — just as a similar resolution was, unexpectedly, rejected in the British House of Commons on Aug. 29.

Some Democrats want the resolution to strictly limit the president, while Republicans like Sen. John McCain want a broader permit that would allow for regime change. Presidents usually prevail on issues like this, where they can argue that national security is at stake, and the administration can probably round up enough votes in the Democratic-majority Senate. That will be much harder in the Republican-majority House. Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have both endorsed a resolution.

But Boehner and Democrat Chris Van Hollen have both called this a conscience vote and said their parties will not whip the issue. The White House will have to do the hard work of rounding up the votes. At midweek the Washington Post listed only 17 House members favoring military action and 130 opposed or leaning against.

Most House Democrats voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002, when most voters favored it. Their party has dovish instincts going back to the Vietnam War and has been largely ignored by the administration since it lost its House majority in 2010.

House Republicans, the object of Obama’s continued denunciations and disdain, are not inclined to trust him at all. Many surely believe they’re being set up as fall guys for a president whose chief political goal is regaining the House majority for Democrats in 2014.

That suspicion was surely enhanced in Sweden on Wednesday when Obama said, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” But the world is not clamoring to enforce it. The only nation contemplating joining the United States in military action is France. That’s 38 fewer allies than joined the United States after the supposed unilateralist George W. Bush, with congressional authorization, ordered troops into Iraq.

Former Bush administration official Elliott Abrams has argued that Obama’s foreign policy is designed to restrain and reduce America’s power in the world. The twists and turns of his policy toward Syria certainly seem to be having that effect.

In a related item courtesy of George Lawlor, Commentary Magazine‘s Peter Wehner suggests, quite accurately in our opinion, attempting to obfuscate his massive Syrian missteps have finally pushed The Great Prevaricator off the deep end:

In Stockholm, Obama Loses Touch with Reality

 

Not to mention immensely satisfying.

As Conn Carroll notes in his Morning Examiner…

…Who drew the red line is not some esoteric question. It goes to the heart of the Syria debate. Are the interests of the United States served by bombing Syria, or is the real purpose in bombing Syria to rehabilitate Obama’s credibility in the world?

If a limited mission as Obama proposes somehow advanced legitimate U.S. national interests overseas, then it might be worth it. But the only thing to be accomplished by Obama’s approach is to help restore his tattered credibility. And Obama’s credibility is not synonymous with that of the United States.

Obama will not be president forever. America’s standing in the world suffered when Jimmy Carter was president. But Carter eventually left office. So will Obama.

Meanwhile, remember those rebels Lurch and Tweedledumb…

…continue to assure America are “moderates”?  Howz this…

…for moderation?!?

Speaking of the second-dumbest Senator…

…in American history, as the AP reports…

 Russia’s Putin Calls John Kerry a Liar on Syria

 

Which, as James Taranto tells us, unlike the “science” of anthropogenic global warming, really IS settled:

In our lead item today, we stated that “John Kerry is more forthright than the average journalist.” ABC News reports on Kerry’s efforts to evade a lawmaker’s pertinent question yesterday:

During a fiery exchange with Representative Jeff Duncan, Secretary of State John Kerry scolded the Republican South Carolina Congressman about bringing up Benghazi during the hearing about military strikes in Syria.

Duncan began his questioning by challenging whether the Obama administration can be trusted after Benghazi. He held up a picture of Tyrone Woods, one of the Americans killed in the attack, and said that Americans are demanding options. Duncan also challenged Kerry’s own professional history, saying Kerry has never “advocated for anything other than caution when involving U.S. forces in past conflicts,” and accused the power of the executive branch as being “so intoxicating” that Kerry has abandoned “past caution in favor for pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly.”

Kerry immediately disputed the question, telling Duncan that he “volunteered to fight” for his country, “and that wasn’t a cautious thing to do when I did it.” When Duncan tried to interrupt the secretary, citing time constraints, Kerry cut him off.

“I’m going to finish, Congressman. I am going to finish,” said Kerry. “When I was in the United States Senate, I supported military action in any number of occasions, including Grenada, Panama–I can run a list of them. And I am not going to sit here and be told by you that I don’t have a sense of what the judgment is with respect to this,” he said angrily.

Kerry then scolded the Congressman about his references to Benghazi.

 The U.S. operation in Grenada occurred in March 1983, when Kerry was Michael Dukakis’s lieutenant governor. He did not join the Senate until 1985. More importantly, as that Boston Globe reported in 2003, his claim to have supported Grenada contemporaneously is false:

The thrust of Kerry’s[1984 Senate] candidacy, however, was an attack on Reagan’s economic, foreign, and military policies.

Kerry was scornful, for instance, of the Grenada invasion, launched by Reagan the previous October to evacuate US medical students after a Marxist-backed military coup on the Caribbean island.

At one point he likened it to “Boston College playing football against the Sisters of Mercy.” Earlier, Kerry told The Cape Codder newspaper:

“The invasion of Grenada represents the Reagan policy of substituting public relations for diplomatic relations . . . no substantial threat to US interests existed and American lives were not endangered . . . The invasion represented a bully’s show of force against a weak Third World nation. The invasion only served to heighten world tensions and further strain brittle US/Soviet and North/South relations.”

Campaigning now for president, however, Kerry is rewriting that history. As he accuses President George W. Bush of hamhanded diplomacy before the invasion of Iraq, Kerry often lists Grenada among the US military incursions he says he has supported.

“I was dismissive of the majesty of the invasion of Grenada,” Kerry says now.” But I basically was supportive. I never publicly opposed it.”

He draws a parallel to his recent stance on Iraq. “I mean, I supported disarming Saddam Hussein, but I was critical of the administration and how it did its diplomacy and so forth,” he explained of a position critics say is a telling example of Kerry’s straddling.

So Kerry is in fact at least as dishonest as the average journalist. We regret the error.

Were we Jeff Duncan, we’d have informed Kerry even had his anti-war actions not obviated any service he previously rendered to America, his Vietnam experience was in no way germane to the subject at hand.  Oh…and then called him a lying SOB!

Which brings us, appropriately enough, to the Muslim Minute, courtesy today of Balls Cotton and Family Security Matters, and yet another twisted tale brought to us by the religion The Dear Misleader claims was integral to the development of Western civilization:

A Child’s Death Rocks Islam’s Teachings

 

Only time will tell, but a 5-year-old Saudi girl may eventually prove to have wielded more influence over her people during her short, tragic life than did the country’s conservative religious leaders touting twisted “virtues” of Islam satisfying their own perversions.

In Saudi Arabia last year, 5-year-old Lama al-Ghamdil was killed by her father — Islamic religious leader and popular TV personality Imam Fayhan al-Ghamdi — after he became incensed she had lost her virginity. Even more shocking, however, is the person to whom her virginity was lost and the initial punishment he was given.

…Ghamdi confessed to torturing and killing his daughter. The girl’s body showed evidence of a fractured skull, brain damage, repeated rapes, burns, beatings with whips and an iron, electrical shocks, a broken back, ribs and arm. Reportedly, he also had sadistically sought to burn Lama’s rectum closed. Ghamdi was arrested and jailed in November.

The abuse inflicted upon Lama was justified by the father as she no longer was a virgin. That would have been sad enough but evidence suggests the father was the rapist.

…A Saudi judge ruled Ghamdi need only pay his ex-wife $50,000 in “blood money” for having abused and killed their daughter (had the child been male the fine would be double), stating the few months he had already spent in prison was sufficient punishment! The ruling was based on Islamic or “Sharia” law prohibiting a father from being executed for killing his child (or wife) if compensation is paid. Ghamdi also was allowed to retain custody (the parents are divorced) of his two surviving children.

The initial response by the Saudi government to this case was only to establish a 24-hour hotline to report child abuse.

Ignoring for the moment the author’s style (which was rather difficult to follow), we frankly found his analysis of the real story behind this atrocity sadly lacking in discernment.  Rather than “rocking” the teaching of Islam, or mitigating any other aspect of it’s barbaric precepts, this story simply exposes the cruelty of the culture with which it is inextricably intertwined.

Shifting our focus back to the domestic front, as the AEI‘s James Pethokoukis informs us, contrary to the claims of Dimocrats, the Welfare State is, and apparently always has been, alive and well:

How disability benefits are creating a nation of dependent Julias (and Julians)

 

Roughly 11 million Americans — including workers and their family — now receive Social Security disability benefits, three times the number 30 years ago. Total economic costs, including both payments and loss of output, are more than $300 billion a year, according to JP Morgan. Economists David Autor and Mark Duggan trace the rapid expansion of SSDI more to an easing of eligibility rules than the aging baby boom generation or the declining health of US workers. Another reason: a decline in job opportunities for low-skill workers.

Just as alarming is how government is turning millions of kids into permanent wards of the state through the federal Supplemental Security Income program, which provides cash benefits to low-income families with a disabled child. As Richard Burkhauser and Mary Daly note in a new paper for the San Francisco Fed, about 1.3 million disabled children received benefits at a cost of $9.3 billion in 2011 vs. 71,000 children at a cost of $40 million when the program began in 1974.

“Program growth increased most rapidly immediately following the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Sullivan v. Zebley, which greatly expanded disability eligibility criteria for children,” the researchers write. “Welfare reform in 1996 tightened eligibility standards and slightly reduced the rolls for one year. However, since that time, recipients and expenditures have steadily increased.” Indeed, poor parents have an incentive to get their kids diagnosed with disability.

But, as Burkhauser and Daly ask, is this necessarily a bad thing? Although the program may be an inefficient method of income redistribution, money is flowing to the poor and near-poor. Unfortunately, there is a major negative unintended consequence: Lifetime dependency. Burkhauser and Daly:

Many beneficiary children from low-income families are so profoundly disabled that they would never be able to enter the workforce as adults. But others, especially the less clear-cut cases that have driven growth since the Zebley decision, might be able to hold a job with appropriate accommodation and training. However, once these children are on SSI, they rarely come off.

Hemmeter, Kauff, and Wittenburg  find that nearly two-thirds of SSI disabled children beneficiaries move directly onto SSI disabled adult rolls. Very few attempt to work thereafter. Moreover, only about 60% of those who do not move directly onto SSI disabled adult rolls are employed at age 19.

Thus, most SSI disabled children beneficiaries graduate from the program into what is likely to be permanent status as an SSI disabled adult beneficiary. And, if they are denied these benefits, they turn to other forms of welfare. This outcome is unintended. But it is quite costly both for the beneficiaries, who live their lives at or near the poverty threshold, and for taxpayers, who fund lifetime benefits.

The paper doesn’t offer any reform ideas, although there have been plenty devised to reform SSDI which might be applicable, including the tightening of eligibility requirements, better differentiating between the profoundly and partially disabled, and extending private disability insurance to virtually all U.S. workers that would nudge companies into trying to keep disability rates low. Faster economic growth and tighter labor markets wouldn’t hurt, either.

We must confess we find Pethokoukis’ view of money flowing to the “poor and near-poor”…without any work or effort of any kind in return…as positive in any way more than disturbing.  If history’s any lesson, all no-strings-attached giveaways offer are perpetual slavery.

Since we’re on the subject of ill-advised, demonstrably unworkable Progressive programs, the WSJ offers the latest on the Unaffordable Care Act:

Navigating ObamaCare Outrage

How dare anyone ask anything about the law’s implementation.

 

With ObamaCare scheduled to launch on October 1, Democrats seem more than a little anxious about their ability to execute. That’s the only fathomable explanation for their nervous breakdown over a routine House inquiry.

The Affordable Care Act is paying for “navigators,” or non-government groups that received federal dollars in August to help people figure out and enroll for subsidies. That such a program even exists explains a lot about the complexity of the new entitlement.

The navigators were supposed to cost $54 million, but the Health and Human Services Department dipped into a “wellness” slush fund to bump that up by 24% to $67 million. The money will flow to groups like Planned Parenthood, the National Urban League and other community organizers.

HHS regulations don’t require background checks for the navigators but do say they must obey security and privacy requirements, without defining what the requirements will be. Since the navigators will tap into sensitive medical and financial information about individuals, more than a dozen state attorneys general are alarmed about the potential for fraud and identity theft.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent oversight letters to about half of 105 navigator organizations with six general questions. They include asking about “the work that will be performed with the funds obtained via your navigator grant” and “the training or education employees, volunteers or representatives must complete.”

Presumably these professional activists needed to submit this sort of material to HHS to obtain taxpayer plums in the first place. HHS could disclose the applications but is treating them like state secrets.

Prepare the fainting couches. HHS has responded by calling the GOP requests “a blatant and shameful attempt to intimidate groups who will be working to inform Americans about” the glories of national health care. Norm Ornstein, the American Enterprise Institute’s house liberal, claims this is “another effort at sabotage” because the navigators won’t be in the field while they’re responding to the letters. Best of all, Henry Waxman claims to be shocked. The Democratic investigations specialist says the letters are “an abuse of your oversight authority,” and he would know.

All of this outrage is part of the liberal alibi that Republicans are responsible if ObamaCare stumbles. But if the handsomely financed navigators can’t spare an hour or two to comply with a congressional investigation, then the law must be in bigger trouble than Democrats care to admit.

Then there’s this from the “Uh…That’s the Whole Idea” segment:

Anthony Weiner To Voter: ‘You Don’t Get To Judge Me’

 

Actually, Anthony, he does; he’s a voter, and thus precisely the person to pass judgment on your deviancy.

On the Lighter Side…

Finally, we’ll call it a week with another titillating tale torn from the pages of the Crime Blotter, courtesy today of Carl Polizzi and an 

Warning: D.C. cops under orders to arrest tourists with empty bullet casings

 

Washington police are operating under orders to arrest tourists and other non-residents traveling with spent bullet or shotgun casings, a crime that carries a $1,000 fine, a year in jail and a criminal record, according to a new book about the city’s confusing gun laws.

“Empty shell casings are considered ammunition in Washington, D.C., so they are illegal to possess unless you are a resident and have a gun registration certificate,” pens Emily Miller in her investigative book, “Emily Gets Her Gun: … But Obama Wants to Take Yours.”

Under the law, live or empty brass and plastic casings must be carried in a special container and unavailable to drivers. Having one, for example, in a cup holder or ash tray is illegal. She told Secrets that the police are “under orders to arrest tourists or other legal gun owners from out of state who wouldn’t think to empty brass and plastic from their cars or pockets.”

Miller, a Washington Times editor, called the D.C. law stupid. “A brass candlestick can do more harm than an empty brass casing. I often have empty casings in my bags and clothes from when they fly off at the range, or as souvenirs,” she wrote. The law covering the transport of guns, ammo, and used ammo casings was enacted in 2009 after the Supreme Court overturned the District’s 30-year gun ban in 2008.

It’s certainly good to know D.C. has its once-soaring homicide rate under control, enabling Washington’s finest to focus on the District’s more serious criminal element.

Magoo